From Inside The Courtroom

Hi!

Yes, Amaral got a nice bunch of witnesses;

1. The prosecutor (Magalhães e Menezes) who signed the final report stating or reinforcing the conclusions in there, which are, as you remember, in a nutshell, there is not enough information to decide on which crime has been committed, let alone who committed it. It was him who corrected Cabrita about the role of the dogs: a means of proof, not a proof. Also, he did not read the book, and answering a question from Isabel, he states that, to him, the title seems an attempt of saying that the book is the truth about a flawed investigation (an investigation that lead to a false conclusion, final report). That one is very serious (on Amaral).

2. Then Amaral's pal (Tavares de Almeida) putting all on the boicot by the 'english' police, politicians (en passant), the McCanns. Yes he did write the report stating that the parents should have their status aggravated because they were suspect of having concealed their daughter's body. Yes, the book is a summary of the investigation. Yes the dogs are super and marked everything, if forensic evidence wasn't found it is all down to FSS, who first said that there were 15 markers out of 19 and then said there was contamination, how could they do that as they (PJ) were getting all the directions on how to recover the indices from them (FSS)? (my comment, what great investigators we've got, they need directions on how to collect residues, evidences, indices!!!). Just remembered, Isabel showed him a map in the book where Amaral explains that the Smiths saw a man that would have come from OC. They had a slightly heated argument, and he lead Isabel to conclude, without any denial, that that map was incorrect, so what else was incorrect in the book?

3. The liaison officer (Ricardo Paiva) speaking in a very very low voice, who basically confirmed everything that is in the book (I think as I haven't read it), being the dogs the main 'dish'. Isabel asked him if he didn't think if the book and the thesis it expresses could hamper the search for Madeleine, to which he answered no, only last week he received several messages that were duly investigated and then he was in complete disarray when Isabel put a question to him ,sorry, can't remember which one because she was careful to remind him that he was under oath!!! And then Isabel asked him 3 (three) times how did the parents hide the body for at least 23/24 days (he wasn't sure about the time) and everytime he answered that they must have hid the body cause the dogs marked the car...blablabla... then Isabel wrapped up her questioning with a 'Right, I understand you do not want to answer my question. That's all, thank you'

4. And finally the director of the national unit of combat of terrorism, formerly and at the time, the unit of combat of bandistry (Luís Neves). A heavy weight, strong voice, but deaf of his left ear (Isabel was on his left). Only one meeting with the British Ambassador (10-15 minutes), two or three meetings with the parents, the consul, Guilhermino Encarnação and two high rank british officers, very helpfull the british police, no, he doesn't know Clarence Mitchel, no pressure while he was there (until August), the dogs came very highly reccomended, no false positives in 100 or 200 cases. Suggestion for the dogs to come from the british. No he did not read the book, he just went through it quickly on the eve of the December hearing so that he could prepare his statement... Yes, what is in the book is also in the files. But the book is a view over an investigation, an 'outburst' of GA, so angry he must have been by loosing 'his' investigation .'We' hate that, 'we' do not like when an investigation does not lead to a charge. Yes, if Gonçalo stayed in the investigation it would probably end in a different way.

Some or all of them said that Kate 'started' admitting that Madeleine 'was' dead when she asked for Krugel to be called and even asked that his searches to be widened to the rocks, some scrubland...

Sorry for the scattered report, it is my first court case... Tomorrow I will take notes, it will be easier.

About the questions, you were complaining that without knowing the questions it became difficult to understand the answers. Well, Cabrita is not very imaginative. Always the dogs (why, what, how), the 'coincidence' between the files and the book, the strange behaviours, namely Kate's, no much more than that.

Oh, and the mad woman was there! I didn't see anybody besides the media at the door, but ten meters away I heard her 'long live Dr. Gonçalo Amaral'. I believe she was completely alone.

My opinion? Amaral must be thinking to himself 'with friends like these who needs ennemies?'

Well, and I'm going to try to get some sleep, I'll have to get up at 4:30...

Night all, hope this very very short summary is of any use.

Maria thank you so much for you findings from inside the court and I look forward to reading your update tomorrow.

You are a star thank you so much.

Thank you from me too Maria. Good job.

Am just catching up here too.
Maria, thank you, its much appreciated by us all.
Doesnt look good for Gonc so far does it?
Are his next lot of witnesses as good as his first lot?
Gonc, just admit defeat, you know you cannot possibly win this case.

Yes, many thanks Maria!

Thank you Maria.
Morais must be sooooooooo jealous of you, as it seems she's said she can't get into court because she's no journalist.

Rosie, you've said "All they are doing is repeating libel in court."
I disagree. Imo what they are showing is how they were prejudiced by their personal opinion about the couple and how they funded their investigation on that as well as on gossips.

GA can't feel happy about the statements of Magalhães e Menezes and Luís Neves in particular.

Maria will be reporting for us and once again we feel indebted to her, she is a very special lady and J4 is lucky to have her.

Thank you so much Maria

Maria there are replies to this post on the other thread, I just wanted you to have your own thread so what you report will get the special attention it deserves. I hope you do not mind that I have moved it here? (I can always move it back if you want - no problem)

Cath wrote:Thank you Maria.
Morais must be sooooooooo jealous of you, as it seems she's said she can't get into court because she's no journalist.

Rosie, you've said "All they are doing is repeating libel in court."
I disagree. Imo what they are showing is how they were prejudiced by their personal opinion about the couple and how they funded their investigation on that as well as on gossips.

GA can't feel happy about the statements of Magalhães e Menezes and Luís Neves in particular.

Exactly Cath! Amaral is putting witnesses in who are repeating his libel and gossip, they are demonstrating themselves, just how ineffectual the investigation was and just how libellous Amaral has been in his book, by writing his rubbish in there!

Wow Maria, you are more than a star! TY

I read on another thread on here that the Judge mentioned the Joana case yesterday. Has that been reported by Sky?

Bloody marvellous, Maria. xxxx

Maria my friend, thank you.

Wow Maria. That is super stuff. Can't wait to read your account of today's proceedings with Amaral having flounced from the court.

Hi Maria, hope you got a good nights sleep, you certainly earned it, lol.

I cannot tell you how much we appreciate what you are doing, you are one special lady.

Hi Maria,

Hope all went well today and you are not too tired, can't wait for your report (If you have the time)