Thanks everyone. I'm intrigued by this Jane Tanner business. I wonder whether, as a former arguido, Robert Murat has had access to more information relating to the case as it affected him than the rest of us have?
Thanks everyone. I'm intrigued by this Jane Tanner business. I wonder whether, as a former arguido, Robert Murat has had access to more information relating to the case as it affected him than the rest of us have?
Well, as a volunteer translater, he did sit through whole interviews in the early days
Have just seen the following on Twitter Goncalo Amaral said that Martin Smith, who was ~convinced that he saw Gerry carrying a child will testify if the case is reopened
Well aren't we learning a lot about legal procedures, and still no nearer to finding out what happened to Madeleine.
It doesn't matter to me who has won and lost in court. That night in May the child was let down by the people who should have cared about her the most.
And no amount of PR and spin will ever change that fact.
What matters is finding Madeleine, and none of this legal action is going to achieve that.
I think I read something in the interview transcripts by Leicestershire police which made me too.
I'm pretty sure it said that the police (obviously) were going to ask questions but that the interviewees would also be asked some questions on behalf of K&G. Does anyone else remember seeing that? (I might have to go and have a google and check)
Here you go - from Stephen Carpenters rogatory interview, DC Ferguson says:
Also any police FMs - is that customary? It seems bizarre. I'm not sure if they were still arguidos at the time, but even if they weren't, is it usual for the police ask questions on behalf of 'civilians' even if they have been affected by a crime?
It's all to do with the Rogatory letters. Part of their remit is that it gives 'the other side' a chance to add questions to the list and also the opportunity to request that people are interviewed, on their behalf. Character witnesses, I suppose.
Have just seen the following on Twitter Goncalo Amaral said that Martin Smith, who was ~convinced that he saw Gerry carrying a child will testify if the case is reopened
Sounds promising. And if Mr Kennedy steps in to 'intervene' Mr Smith should go to the police.
Have just seen the following on Twitter Goncalo Amaral said that Martin Smith, who was ~convinced that he saw Gerry carrying a child will testify if the case is reopened
I think Amaral has lots of things up his sleeves right now.
He is the one that wanted to bring back the Smiths, but he was taken off the case. Perhaps that is why the Smiths have kept quiet because they know they have something very important to say but dont want to say it just yet.
Anyway its 19 February. Winning the injunction hasnt brought maddy back yet. Just must remind the McCanns that it is their fault their beautiful daughter is missing.
NOT AMARALS, not anyone on forums. THEY ARE SOLEY RESPONSIBLE. Bad bad bad parents.
I would like to ask Mrs McCann a question.
Mrs McCann if you and your husband wanted to pop to the local pup in your village would you have just left your children asleep and POPPED back every hour to check on them?
Have just seen the following on Twitter Goncalo Amaral said that Martin Smith, who was ~convinced that he saw Gerry carrying a child will testify if the case is reopened
That sounds interesting.
Although one has to wonder - if he has any kind of information that might be helpful, and he himself wants to say so, why has he not done so already?
Can't blame him mind. He made the mistake once of getting in the way of the mighty Mcccann Media machine.
Ah well. Wonder who will say what at which Press Conference today.
Why did The Mccann's not sue as soon as the book was published? 2008 that was, or am I wrong?
I have been having a trawl around this morning, and it is still available in quite a few countries, and seems to have been for a while.
Of course, I don't know when proceedings may have been started, maybe they DID file in 2008 and the justice system was just very very slow.
If it damaged the search for Madeleine, surely it was damaging the search for Madeleine from the start. It didnt just suddenly start damaging the search because there was a publication date due in the UK surely? Or is it ONLY the people of the UK and Portugal who are supposed to be looking for her? Do they not mind if people in France, Germany,Canada, etc etc don't bother coming forward with information because they think Madeleine is dead because the book says so? Maybe their information is not worth anything.
I find it very confusing. I would be interested to know if I am completely mad - When was the case filed/ when was the book first available. Anywhere.
Because the basis of the case for banning the book, is that it damages the search for Madeleine.
I assume the basis of the case for libel is because they consider the book libellous.
Surely both those things are true in any language?
Why did The Mccann's not sue as soon as the book was published? 2008 that was, or am I wrong?
I have been having a trawl around this morning, and it is still available in quite a few countries, and seems to have been for a while.
Of course, I don't know when proceedings may have been started, maybe they DID file in 2008 and the justice system was just very very slow.
If it damaged the search for Madeleine, surely it was damaging the search for Madeleine from the start. It didnt just suddenly start damaging the search because there was a publication date due in the UK surely? Or is it ONLY the people of the UK and Portugal who are supposed to be looking for her? Do they not mind if people in France, Germany,Canada, etc etc don't bother coming forward with information because they think Madeleine is dead because the book says so? Maybe their information is not worth anything.
I find it very confusing. I would be interested to know if I am completely mad - When was the case filed/ when was the book first available. Anywhere.
Because the basis of the case for banning the book, is that it damages the search for Madeleine.
I assume the basis of the case for libel is because they consider the book libellous.
Surely both those things are true in any language?
If anyone has hindered the search for Madeleine, it is the McCanns. They set up a phoneline "manned" (or not, as it now appears) by cowboys who didn't follow up the calls. That wouldn't have happened if there had only ever been the one, official, police phone number.
If anyone has hindered the search for Madeleine, it is the McCanns. They set up a phoneline "manned" (or not, as it now appears) by cowboys who didn't follow up the calls. That wouldn't have happened if there had only ever been the one, official, police phone number.
And of course the ironic thing being, they are now accusing THE POLICE IN PORTUGAL of not following up leads.
Honestly, it beggars belief.
Why does someone not call them on these things?
At the very least they should practice what they preach.
Comments
http://www.express.co.uk/posts/view/159124/Expat-is-to-sue-tapas-bar-friends
The Star has in it's opening paragraph ... 'A judge has ruled that ex-detective Goncalo Amaral's controversial best seller should be pulped'
... here we go again :rolleyes:
Well, as a volunteer translater, he did sit through whole interviews in the early days
Lol, you gotta love The Star
And I suspect that's one of the problems certain individuals had against him.
Didn't the injunction require the book and DVD to be stored in the lawyers premises?
Still, pulping and the Star go hand in hand.
Will be seeing you on the morrow. We will have press conferences of various types to discuss then it seems.
Nighty night. x
Night Lizzy
gnite, I think I ought to do the same
Goncalo Amaral said that Martin Smith, who was ~convinced that he saw Gerry carrying a child will testify if the case is reopened
I'm waiting for the men's free- skating ... I just love Evan Lysacek
It doesn't matter to me who has won and lost in court. That night in May the child was let down by the people who should have cared about her the most.
And no amount of PR and spin will ever change that fact.
What matters is finding Madeleine, and none of this legal action is going to achieve that.
How sad.
And I'm grumpy 'cos I'm a Plushenko girl
It's all to do with the Rogatory letters. Part of their remit is that it gives 'the other side' a chance to add questions to the list and also the opportunity to request that people are interviewed, on their behalf. Character witnesses, I suppose.
Sounds promising. And if Mr Kennedy steps in to 'intervene' Mr Smith should go to the police.
I think Amaral has lots of things up his sleeves right now.
He is the one that wanted to bring back the Smiths, but he was taken off the case. Perhaps that is why the Smiths have kept quiet because they know they have something very important to say but dont want to say it just yet.
Anyway its 19 February. Winning the injunction hasnt brought maddy back yet. Just must remind the McCanns that it is their fault their beautiful daughter is missing.
NOT AMARALS, not anyone on forums. THEY ARE SOLEY RESPONSIBLE. Bad bad bad parents.
I would like to ask Mrs McCann a question.
Mrs McCann if you and your husband wanted to pop to the local pup in your village would you have just left your children asleep and POPPED back every hour to check on them?
Answers on a postcard please.................
That sounds interesting.
Although one has to wonder - if he has any kind of information that might be helpful, and he himself wants to say so, why has he not done so already?
Can't blame him mind. He made the mistake once of getting in the way of the mighty Mcccann Media machine.
Ah well. Wonder who will say what at which Press Conference today.
Morning all.
Why did The Mccann's not sue as soon as the book was published? 2008 that was, or am I wrong?
I have been having a trawl around this morning, and it is still available in quite a few countries, and seems to have been for a while.
Of course, I don't know when proceedings may have been started, maybe they DID file in 2008 and the justice system was just very very slow.
If it damaged the search for Madeleine, surely it was damaging the search for Madeleine from the start. It didnt just suddenly start damaging the search because there was a publication date due in the UK surely? Or is it ONLY the people of the UK and Portugal who are supposed to be looking for her? Do they not mind if people in France, Germany,Canada, etc etc don't bother coming forward with information because they think Madeleine is dead because the book says so? Maybe their information is not worth anything.
I find it very confusing. I would be interested to know if I am completely mad - When was the case filed/ when was the book first available. Anywhere.
Because the basis of the case for banning the book, is that it damages the search for Madeleine.
I assume the basis of the case for libel is because they consider the book libellous.
Surely both those things are true in any language?
Am I wrong in thinking that he has intervened before? If so, perhaps that will form part of Mr Smith's evidence.
Maybe. I'm not sure about before. I seem to remember something vaguely, but not sure what.
Sorry, that was no help at all!
If anyone has hindered the search for Madeleine, it is the McCanns. They set up a phoneline "manned" (or not, as it now appears) by cowboys who didn't follow up the calls. That wouldn't have happened if there had only ever been the one, official, police phone number.
And of course the ironic thing being, they are now accusing THE POLICE IN PORTUGAL of not following up leads.
Honestly, it beggars belief.
Why does someone not call them on these things?
At the very least they should practice what they preach.