McCann v Amaral Damages Trial Verdict February

Resistor wrote:

Lioned wrote:Excellent report from Astro.

So we could be going into March then.

From my reading of that Amaral has a very good lawyer.Not sure the suggestion of a British conspiracy will work if thats what he is alluding to here.

"SY appears, coincidentally, whenever there is a trial session in Lisbon"

Certainly not pulling his punches there.

And it surely couldnt look good with half the mccann team missing !

I saw a picture of the Lawyers office in a very, very, very expensive part of Lisbon.  I shouldn't think he'd come cheap.  I wonder who's paying!

Madeleine.

Deecoy as soon as I read that about the lawyer saying the smiths sighting can't be trusted I immediately thought of someone else who is constantly trying to dismiss their statements...

bellisa wrote:Deecoy as soon as I read that about the lawyer saying the smiths sighting can't be trusted I immediately thought of someone else who is constantly trying to dismiss their statements...

Me too. A McCann lawyer has publicly undermined the Smith sighting - wonder how the theory that they did give the same amount of credence to the Smiths' sighting as they did to Jane's will stand up now? After Ricardo has sliced the legs from under it, so to speak.

The McCanns don't like Smithman being discussed. Anyone fighting for Madeleine who doubts the Smiths must surely now question their own theories in view of this new evidence that the McCanns appear happy to concur with their doubts. Imo.

Dee Coy wrote:

bellisa wrote:Deecoy as soon as I read that about the lawyer saying the smiths sighting can't be trusted I immediately thought of someone else who is constantly trying to dismiss their statements...

Me too. A McCann lawyer has publicly undermined the Smith sighting - wonder how the theory that they did give the same amount of credence to the Smiths' sighting as they did to Jane's will stand up now? After Ricardo has sliced the legs from under it, so to speak.

The McCanns don't like Smithman being discussed. Anyone fighting for Madeleine who doubts the Smiths must surely now question their own theories in view of this new evidence that the McCanns appear happy to concur with their doubts. Imo.

Yes, the cat's out of the bag, its official, the McCanns do not like the Smith sighting!  Well of course we have known that for years, but those trying to convince people otherwise have now been proved categorically wrong.  The Smith sighting has always troubled the McCanns deeply.  If Smithman didn't bother them he would have been shouted from the rooftops because his running through the streets with a child supported an abduction story.  A man who looked like Gerry carrying a child that looked like Madeleine in PDL at kick off time is just too coincidental in my opinion.  Lets hope DCI Nicola Wall heard the McCanns dismissal of the Smith family evidence.

All in all a terrible day for the McCanns I'd say.  I think they stayed away because it kept the press away - clearly they were not expecting things to go well.  Bad sign too that Isabel didn't show up.  Law is another form of showbiz for ugly people and barristers are as narcissistic as they come.  The lead barrister in a 'winning' trial wouldn't miss the last day's summing up for love nor money. Its their moment in the spotlight, the time they present all their knock out blows (if they have any) and slam home all the words they have been preparing for months, if not years, that Isabel would miss the final act is bizarre.  I read that she had another court case, but frankly if I were client, I would be livid, and if they are not, then its because they have already given the case up - a real possibility, they might be saving cash, her non appearance has saved them the cost of two barristers for the day, as it was the childrens' barrister spoke on behalf of all the claimants.  Are the McCanns now finally cutting back?  If they are, its a weird time (and place) to choose and shows how much faith they have in their case.

Wanted to say, I read on the other site, lol, Ultima Thule, that she predicts the McCanns will appeal if they lose.  I don't think that will happen.  This trial has been a huge embarrassment for the parents, I don't think they ever expected it to go this far, in fact, I think they truly believed that Goncalo Amaral would pay up as everyone else had and it would be another easy win.  They waited until Goncalo's book had been out for a year before they brought proceedings (allowing the royalties to stack up) and at that time they were at their most powerful.  Their coffers were full and the great and the good were putty in their hands.  

Unfortunately for the McCanns, the long delays in Portuguese Court proceedings has seen a complete turnaround in their fortunes and the way in which the public perceive them.  Seven years on and after multiple legal actions against anyone who criticises them, the McCanns are now seen as greedy and unscrupulous and that they are demanding cash from the detective who was searching for their daughter takes bizarre to the extreme.  Another case where we have seen this is Jonbenet Ramsey, the Ramseys sued 'Jonbenet's Avenger' and the case settled.  However, the McCanns don't have the resources or the clout of the Ramseys (well they did for a short while) and they didn't bargain for the strength of character shown by Goncalo Amaral.

The McCanns desperately want this trial to go away with as little publicity as possible.  They tried to settle almost two years ago, but Goncalo Amaral was having none of it.  He wanted his day in Court, and what we may well be seeing now is the McCanns squirming.  They take no pride in this case and no-one, other than sycophant Summers wishes them victory - the case doesn't even get a mention on the Facebook page, strange as you would think they would appreciate the support of their 610,000 followers.  

I did a rather pessimistic blog yesterday (I was in a grumpy mood), but today I am feeling rather more optimistic.  The (female) Judge in the Lisbon trial wasn't in the least impressed with Gerry's strutting and dissing of the dogs' evidence, and the fact that their lawyer droned on about them yesterday gives away their weakest spot. Well the dogs and the Smiths sighting have them rattled enough to use the damages trial to refute them publicly, which imo, is very telling indeed.

Dee Coy wrote:"He also attacked the Smiths' credibility and questioned why they were seen as credible by the investigation while Jane Tanner was discredited. He said that Tanner's sighting corroborated the Smiths' sighting, but the coordinator, Amaral, and his team simply wouldn't investigate anything except the death thesis and the McCanns. "

Snip from the description of the speech of Ricardo, lawyer for the McCann children.

In black and white, folks. The McCanns' lawyer attacked the Smiths' credibility and bemoaned the passing of Tannerman.

Perhaps this will finally put to bed the assertions from some quarters that the McCanns promoted the Smith sighting. Their lawyer tells us they didn't like it one little bit.

Which confirms the majority view on Smithman  - he's very important indeed.

Don't think much to the efforts of Ricardo. Fell into GM's habit of commenting on the evidence and the rights and wrongs of the investigation.  And, like the stuttering Gerry, was interrupted and cut short by the judge. What don't they get?

Haha Brilliant...so good to wake up to that news. I wonder how the Smithman doubters will spin it?

I agree Cristobell, if the McCanns lose the case, which is looking increasingly likely, there is no way they will appeal, as I imagine their funds are mostly gone and they have the spectre of Grange looming over them, which has now got to the point of "right back to where it all started" so they probably have more pressing matters on their minds right now.

Yes, I think the McCanns "halcyon days" are long gone, and I think they probably know that too.

With all that seems to have happened yesterday in Lisbon,I really cannot see this trial going much further.I think something unexpected may happen soon and possibly before March.

susible wrote:I agree Cristobell, if the McCanns lose the case, which is looking increasingly likely, there is no way they will appeal, as I imagine their funds are mostly gone and they have the spectre of Grange looming over them, which has now got to the point of "right back to where it all started" so they probably have more pressing matters on their minds right now.

Yes, I think the McCanns "halcyon days" are long gone, and I think they probably know that too.

I hope so too. A hypothetical positive outcome for Mr. Amaral will blow the powerful weapon of seizing his assets and income out of their hands, and an appeal wouldn't easily reinstall that. Instead, the tables could be turned.

Freedom wrote:http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2868798/Former-Madeleine-McCann-police-chief-earned-hundreds-thousands-writing-distortions-conspiracy-theories-book-case.html

Yes, I saw that yesterday Freedom, and was immediately struck by its appearance after BS's latest blog about the fact that the libel trial was so rarely reported on in the UK as opposed to Arguido day, which had all of the news outlets printing reams and reams of stories.

Seems like Clarence, or someone else attached to TM was attempting to spin the trial, notably all of the appalling language, disgraced, bungling etc was brought out, but it's too little, too late imo as the landscape has definitely changed now

"SY appears, coincidentally, whenever there is a trial session in Lisbon"

Am I the only person who thinks that SY are visiting Portugal whenever there is a trial session to put pressure on the McCanns?

Every time the couple set foot in Portugal, they risk being arrested - even more so if both investigative forces are present - which is why they didn't appear as a couple during the early stages of the trial. Of course, once their case started going down the toilet (where it belongs) Gerry had to go charging in regardless of the risk.

Even if the trial has become an embarrassment for the couple, I can't see Gerry willingly lose the opportunity to stand on the court steps to try to spin the situation in their favour to the waiting press.

I think that the McCanns didn't appear in Lisbon yesterday because the investigation is now too close. The noose is tightening and they are worried.

Hopefully.

I agree Poe, and Isabel Duarte surely must have known her timetable of cases well in advance in order for her to ask for a postponement sooner.

"He also attacked the Smiths' credibility and questioned why they were seen as credible by the investigation while Jane Tanner was discredited. He said that Tanner's sighting corroborated the Smiths' sighting, but the coordinator, Amaral, and his team simply wouldn't investigate anything except the death thesis and the McCanns. "

Snip from the description of the speech of Ricardo, lawyer for the McCann children.

So the McCann's are now dissing Andy Redwood? He was the one who said, on Crimewatch, that the Smith sighting was the most important one. Do the McCanns now believe that the SY investigation is not credible either? They did, after all, release the e-fits of Smithman.

And why does Ricardo sound more like the lawyer acting for the parents, when he is supposed to be there representing the children? Why wasn't Duarte there? And isn't this second time she hasn't been around to represent her clients?

Resistor wrote:

"He also attacked the Smiths' credibility and questioned why they were seen as credible by the investigation while Jane Tanner was discredited. He said that Tanner's sighting corroborated the Smiths' sighting, but the coordinator, Amaral, and his team simply wouldn't investigate anything except the death thesis and the McCanns. "

Snip from the description of the speech of Ricardo, lawyer for the McCann children.

So the McCann's are now dissing Andy Redwood?  He was the one who said, on Crimewatch, that the Smith sighting was the most important one.  Do the McCanns now believe that the SY investigation is not credible either?  They did, after all, release the e-fits of Smithman.

And why does Ricardo sound more like the lawyer acting for the parents, when he is supposed to be there representing the children?  Why wasn't Duarte there?  And isn't this second time she hasn't been around to represent her clients?

A little hint there that AR is not singing from the mcs hymn sheet, maybe?
IMO

The lawyer having put forward Tannerman, if he did so, as being similar to Smithman, to either discredit Smithman or make Tannerman the bogeyman, makes me think of Tony Bennett's great scientific opus magnus on the Jill Havern Forum "Three hundred and thirty three thousand three hundred and thirty three Similarities between Smithman and Tannerman".
Note the reoccurring number three, which means, of course, -edited by MI5-.

Missed all this yesterday so it's interesting and positive to read through the comments etc about it this morning.

In a nutshell - The McCanns are doomed and in more ways than one.

IMO.

Burst wrote:The lawyer having put forward Tannerman, if he did so, as being similar to Smithman, to either discredit Smithman or make Tannerman the bogeyman, makes me think of Tony Bennett's great scientific opus magnus on the Jill Havern Forum "Three hundred and thirty three thousand three hundred and thirty three Similarities between Smithman and Tannerman".
Note the reoccurring number three, which means, of course, -edited by MI5-.

So funny.

Dee Coy wrote:"He also attacked the Smiths' credibility and questioned why they were seen as credible by the investigation while Jane Tanner was discredited. He said that Tanner's sighting corroborated the Smiths' sighting, but the coordinator, Amaral, and his team simply wouldn't investigate anything except the death thesis and the McCanns. "

Snip from the description of the speech of Ricardo, lawyer for the McCann children.

In black and white, folks. The McCanns' lawyer attacked the Smiths' credibility and bemoaned the passing of Tannerman.

Perhaps this will finally put to bed the assertions from some quarters that the McCanns promoted the Smith sighting. Their lawyer tells us they didn't like it one little bit.

Which confirms the majority view on Smithman  - he's very important indeed.

Don't think much to the efforts of Ricardo. Fell into GM's habit of commenting on the evidence and the rights and wrongs of the investigation.  And, like the stuttering Gerry, was interrupted and cut short by the judge. What don't they get?

More to the point, the lawyer seems to be publicly stating that the Mccanns don't believe Andy Redwoods "revelatory moment" when he said the had identified Tannerman clothes and all. They appeared on Crimewatch with him when he told us this yet didn't disagree with him.

They still have Tannerman on their website as needing to be found.

Andy Redwood must know that they don't believe him. This must mean that all is not sweetness and light between them and Redwood as Redwood would like us to believe.

Burst wrote:The lawyer having put forward Tannerman, if he did so, as being similar to Smithman, to either discredit Smithman or make Tannerman the bogeyman, makes me think of Tony Bennett's great scientific opus magnus on the Jill Havern Forum "Three hundred and thirty three thousand three hundred and thirty three Similarities between Smithman and Tannerman".
Note the reoccurring number three, which means, of course, -edited by MI5-.

Love it!

Someone, somewhere else saying the lawyer was right to question the smith sighting and Goncalo was wrong!
Jeez, IMO

Poe wrote:

"SY appears, coincidentally, whenever there is a trial session in Lisbon"

Am I the only person who thinks that SY are visiting Portugal whenever there is a trial session to put pressure on the McCanns?

Every time the couple set foot in Portugal, they risk being arrested - even more so if both investigative forces are present - which is why they didn't appear as a couple during the early stages of the trial. Of course, once their case started going down the toilet (where it belongs) Gerry had to go charging in regardless of the risk.

Even if the trial has become an embarrassment for the couple, I can't see Gerry willingly lose the opportunity to stand on the court steps to try to spin the situation in their favour to the waiting press.

I think that the McCanns didn't appear in Lisbon yesterday because the investigation is now too close. The noose is tightening and they are worried.

Hopefully.

I've always felt that the notion of a correlation between SY visits and Trial sessions is a bit overplayed - the more genuine correlation with the visits to me appears to be absurd UK media activity and regurgitated and distracting nonsense stories. And whilst some people have always suggested these are SY fed, I tend towards the simpler explanation of the media's favourite "source close to the investigation".

And nice to see, once and for all, a clear statement from the McCann side that they don't like Smithman or believe the Smiths.
You'd have thought they would be delighted for SY to take Tannerman out of the list of suspects too - surely that means they can be confident SY has eliminated an innocent man from the inquiry and has added a further level of focus. Their continued 100% priority of Tannerman and 100% absence of Smithman on their official site's People of Interest page - http://www.findmadeleine.com/campaigns/unidentified_people.html - along with their legal team's words this week surely suggest that TM and SY are *not* "sitting in a tree".
I'd like to think it might also finally lay to rest notions that the McCanns are in any way positively "promoting" Smithman. Though I somehow doubt it.

Many positives from Lisbon I reckon.

Go Goncalo!