Portuguese judicial secrecy law and its impact on the Madeleine case.

[jassi]

Given that Brietta must have cut & paste just about everything relevant to the case, G's comment makes sense to me.

[Brietta]

Given that Brietta must have cut & paste just about everything relevant to the case, G's comment makes sense to me.

It would be appropriate if G-Unit would 'explain' her rather cryptic comments for herself and provide cites in support ... I admit I am rather bored by the shenanigans, but there we are.

Then perhaps we can get back to the subject matter of the thread which refers to the impact of judicial secrecy  on Madeleine's case which in my opinion was profound.

[G-Unit]

It would be appropriate if G-Unit would 'explain' her rather cryptic comments for herself and provide cites in support ... I admit I am rather bored by the shenanigans, but there we are.

Then perhaps we can get back to the subject matter of the thread which refers to the impact of judicial secrecy  on Madeleine's case which in my opinion was profound.

My comment was a reference to your habit of using newspaper articles to support your opinion. On this thread newspaper articles accusing the PJ of leaking are being used to support your opinion that the PJ breached judicial secrecy laws. That's ironic because the media started the rumour that the PJ had leaked, so what else are they going to say?

An examination of these so-called leaks shows that the media stories were not accurate representations of what the PJ were thinking and doing. I take that to mean that the PJ didn't leak. You, on the other hand, think they leaked inaccurate information for their own nefarious purposes. I think that's a bit far-fetched.

If we believe the rather sparse evidence that the PJ leaked, we have to accept that Operation Grange did too, because the stories quote the same source; someone 'close' to the investigation. No-one minds about the Met leaking, it seems.

[sadie]

My comment was a reference to your habit of using newspaper articles to support your opinion. On this thread newspaper articles accusing the PJ of leaking are being used to support your opinion that the PJ breached judicial secrecy laws. That's ironic because the media started the rumour that the PJ had leaked, so what else are they going to say?

An examination of these so-called leaks shows that the media stories were not accurate representations of what the PJ were thinking and doing. I take that to mean that the PJ didn't leak. You, on the other hand, think they leaked inaccurate information for their own nefarious purposes. I think that's a bit far-fetched.

If we believe the rather sparse evidence that the PJ leaked, we have to accept that Operation Grange did too, because the stories quote the same source; someone 'close' to the investigation. No-one minds about the Met leaking, it seems.

I agree totally with Brietta.  The PJ leaks breached tgheir secrecy Laws and appear to have been attempts to destroy the public image of The Mccanns, Jane Tanner and the rest of the Tapas friends.  Unkind people, in the UK mainly, have also done their level best to destroy them and Clarence Mitchell.

As mentioned in this thread false info and going against The Secrecy Laws, has been spread afar, in order to destroy their image and their standing.  Sheer propaganda and disinformation has been the order of the day.  Disgusting behaviour that would not be tolerated in a civilised Country, but seemingly ignored, even welcomed by many in Portugal. 

You only have to look at other cases to see that certain elements of the PJ have used this technique to great advantage against the people "they" think they might be charging

!)  Poor Michael Cook somehow had convictions for Paedophilia that were not true ++
2)  Poor Jacintha Rees was doolally, so they said , because according to them she lit candles all around her as she sat in the road when her car was broken down in the hills.  Maybe it is true, maybe not, but if broken down in the pitch black what a sesible move.   Nothing to be ridiculed about that.

And, of course, she ran through the house axing herself in the head .... Blood all over and defence marks IIRC on her arms, but she managed four axe blows before she finally died.   Just WHO do they think they are kidding?

3)  Well where do you start with Leonor and Joao?  Such unbelievably awful propaganda put out about them.  I wont go into it here because it seems to upset John

4)   
-  The Mccanns were swingers etc. 
-  Kate couldn't cope etc.   
-  Kate wanted a priest and that was proof that she did it. 
-  They took the body in the car to get rid of it
.... after storing it in a freezer for was it five weeks?  etc etc.


It is good to see you finding all these articles, Brietts.  They show how widespread this churning out of propaganda was.    And we have also seen the results of how it harms the victims.


If you have the energy, Brietta, keep going, it is clearly wearing the sceptics down.  Take no notice of sceptics making nasty remarks.  All they want is to stop you showing the PJ up with its breaking of Secrecy Laws and dissipation of disinformation.  They dont like you showing the true situation. IMHO.


You and misty and others are doing very well   .  I just wish I had the energy to join you.


AIMHO

[Brietta]

My comment was a reference to your habit of using newspaper articles to support your opinion. On this thread newspaper articles accusing the PJ of leaking are being used to support your opinion that the PJ breached judicial secrecy laws. That's ironic because the media started the rumour that the PJ had leaked, so what else are they going to say?

An examination of these so-called leaks shows that the media stories were not accurate representations of what the PJ were thinking and doing. I take that to mean that the PJ didn't leak. You, on the other hand, think they leaked inaccurate information for their own nefarious purposes. I think that's a bit far-fetched.

If we believe the rather sparse evidence that the PJ leaked, we have to accept that Operation Grange did too, because the stories quote the same source; someone 'close' to the investigation. No-one minds about the Met leaking, it seems.

What exactly is your explanation of exactly where Portuguese journalists sourced their information?
They were illegally writing about an active criminal investigation after all ... why on earth was no action taken against them?
They were easy enough to identify.  Yet they were allowed to flout the criminal secrecy law with impunity on a daily basis the penalty for which was two years in jail.

How do you know what the PJ were thinking and doing?

The met were not involved in Portuguese investigations in 2007.  The Policia Judiciaria were liaising with Leicestershire constabulary.  There are many concerns about one leaking and the other not leaking.

As we have been informed on this thread cited from the Leveson Inquiry, Matthew Baggott, the former chief constable of Leicestershire police took the concept of judicial secrecy very much to heart.
As a result he allowed the erroneous DNA report which placed Madeleine's body in the boot of the car hired five weeks after her disappearance to stand unchallenged.

I await with anticipation the cites I have requested from you.

[Brietta]

Day 25 - PM         Leveson Inquiry         12 January 2012

Sworn evidence given by Peter Hill,  editor of the Daily Express between December 2003 and February 2011

Q. Yes. Thank you. Your second statement, Mr Hill, deals with the McCanns.

A. Oh yes.

Q. Of course, you've given evidence to the Parliamentary Select Committee about this, haven't you?

A. Yes, extensively.

Q. Can I take you to that statement and refer to a number of points. At paragraph 2 --

A. What --

Q. This is in the second file under tab 23.

A. Oh, 23. Okay. Yes, paragraph 2.

Q. The question which was asked of you was in effect what fact checking your paper indulged in.

Your answer was:"That is a very, very good question. In this particular case, as I explained to you, the Portuguese police were unable, because of the legal restrictions in Portugal, to make any official comment on the case."
Then I paraphrase: they leaked things to the press and therefore checking the stories was not very easy.
And then you went on to say newspapers operate at high speed, et cetera.

    ////////

A. Of course. We published many, many, many, many stories of all kinds about the McCanns, many stories that were deeply sympathetic to them, some stories that were not.

Q. Yes, but the stories that were not were a little bit more than unsympathetic. Some of them went so far as to
accuse them of killing their child, didn't they?

A. This is what the Portuguese police were telling us.

Q. Yes, but regardless of that, we've already covered that issue, do you accept that some of --

A. You haven't covered it with me.

Q. Just wait, Mr Hill. Do you accept that some of your stories went so far as to accuse them of killing their child?

A. I did not accuse them of killing their child. The stories that I ran were from those who did accuse them, and they were the Portuguese police.

    ////////

Q. Well, the persistence of publication of the stories in relation to the McCanns, where some people might care
extremely deeply, because whether or not they're true and whether or not they're capable of damaging people is
a predominant consideration? Do you begin to see that difference?

A. I perfectly see the difference. On the McCanns story, the entire country had an opinion about that story, and
wherever you went, whether you went to a social gathering or, as somebody said, to the supermarket, people were talking about it and they all had an opinion about it, and these were opinions, these were stronger opinions, and these opinions were informed by the information that was coming from Portugal.
Now, we were not to know at the time that the Portuguese police were not behaving in a proper manner.
Portugal is a civilised country, part of the European Union. We had no reason to believe that its police force was not a proper body. So, as I explained to you, there was an enormous body of opinion on both sides of this story and you couldn't stop that. There was no stopping it.

Q. Apart from to stop publishing it, particularly --

A. That wouldn't have stopped it, because you couldn't -- well, as someone's explained, we now have the Internet,
we have Facebook, we have Twitter, we have all these different things. Information is -- it's a free-for -- it's an information free-for-all that we live in. So whether the newspapers stopped publishing would have made no difference. In fact, it might well have made it worse.

[Eleanor]

A lot of people were taken in by what the UK Press published.  I know I was briefly, much to my continuing shame.  This was before I began to look at the whole thing logically, and even for a while after I started reading The Mirror Forum.
There was very little access to the Portuguese opinions because no one understood Portuguese in those days, so we tended to believe what was being fed to us.

As Brietta has said, it never crossed our minds that certain elements in Portugal were blithely breaking their own secrecy laws, and blatantly lying, to which they have never been called to answer.  The damage at the time was immeasurable.  And it is still being churned out today.

[G-Unit]

Well I see lots of outrage and accusation, but no evidence being offered that the PJ leaked. Media people said they did, but that seems to have been their excuse for what they were reporting. Kind of 'It wasn't my fault, the Portuguese journalists told me and the PJ told them'. They reported rumour and gossip and then blamed everyone else. Lawton went so far as to blame Leicestershire Constabulary for not leaking! At least he admitted that he did not check that his sources were reliable.

[Eleanor]

Well I see lots of outrage and accusation, but no evidence being offered that the PJ leaked. Media people said they did, but that seems to have been their excuse for what they were reporting. Kind of 'It wasn't my fault, the Portuguese journalists told me and the PJ told them'. They reported rumour and gossip and then blamed everyone else. Lawton went so far as to blame Leicestershire Constabulary for not leaking! At least he admitted that he did not check that his sources were reliable.

Where do you think the leaks came from?

[slartibartfast]

Where do you think the leaks came from?

I think it is quite possible that a policeman not involved in the case may have shared his opinion with a journalist. That way you get the police source, the inaccurate information and no breaking of Judicial Secrecy. The press will use any source available whether it is reliable or not.

[Eleanor]

I think it is quite possible that a policeman not involved in the case may have shared his opinion with a journalist. That way you get the police source, the inaccurate information and no breaking of Judicial Secrecy. The press will use any source available whether it is reliable or not.

This Policeman, not involved in the case, does seem to have known more than he ought.

[Brietta]

I am truly astounded.

What lengths to defend the indefensible!

It is worth bearing in mind that the incident which led to Amaral's sacking was an injudicious rant by him to ... a journalist. It was unlawful. 

Apparently not even the coordinator of the Madeleine investigation was above 'off the record' contact with journalists to discuss the case.
Whether that was over a late night meal or a telephone conversation it was contact where the circumstances concerning an active case were the topic of discussion. It was unlawful.

As affirmed by Amaral, on this occasion of unlawful contact it is obvious a line was crossed.
It is in direct breach of Article 86 of the Portuguese Criminal Procedure Code: precisely the law which constrained the McCanns from defending themselves.

In retrospect "astounded"? 
I should not even have been slightly surprised or bemused.  It is after all typical of apologists for what must be considered one of the most shamefully conducted criminal investigations in Portuguese history from which there remain a residue of those who have learned nothing.

The recent textbook reaction to a case of a missing child in Praia da Luz would indicate to me that thankfully, that is not the case as far as modern policing is concerned in Portugal.

[G-Unit]

This Policeman, not involved in the case, does seem to have known more than he ought.

When the police are quoted as the source they seem to know less than they ought. Either way it suggests a lot og guesswork and rumour by journalists;

TRACES of Madeleine McCann's blood have been discovered in the bedroom of the holiday flat where she was last seen, according to reports in a Portuguese newspaper. Jornal De Noticias, reported: "This evidence locates Madeleine's death inside the apartment, but the investigators are still not certain it was murder, despite the fact that forensic experts have revealed that somebody did try to erase the blood traces.
http://www.gerrymccannsblogs.co.uk/press/4aug7/SCOTSMAN_06_08_2007.htm

A source close to the investigation said that the McCanns and their friends would be interviewed as part a routine review of the investigation being carried out with the help of British police officers. He said that possible traces of blood in Madeleine's ground-floor bedroom could have come from any of the hundreds of people who had stayed in the apartment in recent years.
http://www.gerrymccannsblogs.co.uk/press/4aug7/FOXNEWS_08_08_2007.htm

The Portuguese reports have also turned their attention to the group the McCanns were on holiday with.

One paper even suggested that they were now "under surveillance" in the UK, reports which were denied as "laughable" by Portuguese and British authorities
http://www.gerrymccannsblogs.co.uk/press/4aug7/TELEGRAPH_09_08_2007.htm

[Robittybob1]

When the police are quoted as the source they seem to know less than they ought. Either way it suggests a lot og guesswork and rumour by journalists;

TRACES of Madeleine McCann's blood have been discovered in the bedroom of the holiday flat where she was last seen, according to reports in a Portuguese newspaper. Jornal De Noticias, reported: "This evidence locates Madeleine's death inside the apartment, but the investigators are still not certain it was murder, despite the fact that forensic experts have revealed that somebody did try to erase the blood traces.
http://www.gerrymccannsblogs.co.uk/press/4aug7/SCOTSMAN_06_08_2007.htm

A source close to the investigation said that the McCanns and their friends would be interviewed as part a routine review of the investigation being carried out with the help of British police officers. He said that possible traces of blood in Madeleine's ground-floor bedroom could have come from any of the hundreds of people who had stayed in the apartment in recent years.
http://www.gerrymccannsblogs.co.uk/press/4aug7/FOXNEWS_08_08_2007.htm

The Portuguese reports have also turned their attention to the group the McCanns were on holiday with.

One paper even suggested that they were now "under surveillance" in the UK, reports which were denied as "laughable" by Portuguese and British authorities
http://www.gerrymccannsblogs.co.uk/press/4aug7/TELEGRAPH_09_08_2007.htm

They are saying it was Madeleine's blood even before they had confirmed it was Madeleine's blood.  In the end they never proven it was from Madeleine for they were either male or mixed samples when they did the DNA tests on the many swabs.

[jassi]

They are saying it was Madeleine's blood even before they had confirmed it was Madeleine's blood.  In the end they never proven it was from Madeleine for they were either male or mixed samples when they did the DNA tests on the many swabs.

Ooh, I know, those media types will say anything, won't they?