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

[G-Unit]

The editor was giving evidence under oath.

It is well known that here as in Portugal, perjury is an offence for which there are penalties.

Not that he was an editor, of course.

[Brietta]

Not that he was an editor, of course.

I'm talking about this guy ...

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

Who are you talking about?

[G-Unit]

I'm talking about this guy ...

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

Who are you talking about?

Sorry, I got mixed up. I notice he had no real answer to this question;

Jay asked him: “What did you do to check on the validity of those stories?”

Hill replied: “We did the best that we could do, which was not very much.”
http://www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/2012/01/12/leveson-inquiry-former-express-editor-peter-hill_n_1201849.html

[Brietta]

Sorry, I got mixed up. I notice he had no real answer to this question;

Jay asked him: “What did you do to check on the validity of those stories?”

Hill replied: “We did the best that we could do, which was not very much.”
http://www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/2012/01/12/leveson-inquiry-former-express-editor-peter-hill_n_1201849.html

Perhaps he was relaxed about the validity of information received from what he may have believed at the time was an impeccable source.

Snip
Explaining why his paper published negative stories about the couple, Hill told the inquiry:
“I did not accuse them of killing their child. The stories that we ran were from those who did accuse them, and they were the Portuguese police.”
http://www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/2012/01/12/leveson-inquiry-former-express-editor-peter-hill_n_1201849.html

[Eleanor]

What is diabolical about investigating the parents of a kid missing under suspicious circumstances?  Every police force in the world would have done the same given the background and evidence surely?

No.

[sadie]

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

Who fed them the disinformation, do you think?

[sadie]

Surely the editor of the Express is not suggesting that the police force of an EU member state is not "a proper body".
Gimme a break [best not say that to the Portuguese Police some think they may misconstrue !]

As the invstigating judge is the arbiter on what constitutes judicial secrecy on his cases I would suggest unless anyone has been canvassing his opinion one way or another the answer is a lemon.

 

First time i have laughed at any of your ermm "jokes", Alice, but this was a good one

[G-Unit]

Perhaps he was relaxed about the validity of information received from what he may have believed at the time was an impeccable source.

Snip
Explaining why his paper published negative stories about the couple, Hill told the inquiry:
“I did not accuse them of killing their child. The stories that we ran were from those who did accuse them, and they were the Portuguese police.”
http://www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/2012/01/12/leveson-inquiry-former-express-editor-peter-hill_n_1201849.html

As I recall the PJ never accused the McCanns of killing anyone, so that statement is false.

In the end, when challenged, the newspapers were unable to defend their actions and paid the McCanns half a million in damages. That means they did not have impeccable sources. The PJ were not the source of some of their stories;

Additional examples were given including stories that Madeleine had been "sold" to ease financial burdens and that the McCanns were involved in "swinging" or "wife-swapping orgies".
https://www.theguardian.com/media/2008/mar/19/pressandpublishing.medialaw

[Brietta]

As I recall the PJ never accused the McCanns of killing anyone, so that statement is false.

In the end, when challenged, the newspapers were unable to defend their actions and paid the McCanns half a million in damages. That means they did not have impeccable sources. The PJ were not the source of some of their stories;

Additional examples were given including stories that Madeleine had been "sold" to ease financial burdens and that the McCanns were involved in "swinging" or "wife-swapping orgies".
https://www.theguardian.com/media/2008/mar/19/pressandpublishing.medialaw

Please remember to indicate when you are expressing your opinion and your interpretation of events which with all due respect you know absolutely nothing about.

I recommend that rather than using the paraphrased accounts of newspapers you find a version of the actual evidence presented to the Leveson Inquiry.
For example ... arising from David Pilditch's sworn testimony ...


12.19pm: Jay says a further Express story reporting DNA "findings" that Madeleine's body had been in the spare tyre-well in the boot was also inaccurate.

The DNA evidence was "at best inconclusive", says Jay. He refers to the testimony of the McCann's four weeks ago who said it was "simply untrue" .

"Madeleine's DNA was not uncovered in the hire car," Jay points out.

Pilditch says "we know that now, but we didn't know that then" adding the local police were briefing that there were links.

    ////////

12.59pm: Sherborne wants to put it on record that there is nothing in the police files to suggest that Madeleine's DNA was found in a car referred to in one of Pilditch's articles.

Leveson explains he is conducting an investigation into press ethics but is happy to put it on record that this is indeed the case.


Everybody is agreed that there is absolutely no foundation at all for the allegation that emerged throughout the press at this time that Dr and Dr McCann were involved in any way, in any inappropriate conduct in relation to the disappearance of their daughter.

https://www.theguardian.com/media/2011/dec/21/leveson-inquiry-james-hipwell-live#block-62


The question arises as to why the Portuguese police leaked that particular story?

[John]

As I recall the PJ never accused the McCanns of killing anyone, so that statement is false.

In the end, when challenged, the newspapers were unable to defend their actions and paid the McCanns half a million in damages. That means they did not have impeccable sources. The PJ were not the source of some of their stories;

Additional examples were given including stories that Madeleine had been "sold" to ease financial burdens and that the McCanns were involved in "swinging" or "wife-swapping orgies".
https://www.theguardian.com/media/2008/mar/19/pressandpublishing.medialaw

I think we all know by now that some so-called professional journalists make up stories in order to enhance their bank accounts.  The old 'a source' label has allowed them to do this without being forced to reveal their sources.  Editors too have much to be ashamed of including front page headlines such as, "Maddie found in Greece" or "Maddie found in Ireland".

[G-Unit]

One of the Express journalists was honest about where they got their stories. They seem to have relied on Portuguese journalists to brief them. Padraic Flanagan said;

With regard to specific exampies I wrote a story on 25 October 2007 regarding certain questions that the police wanted to put to the McCanns. This was sourced directly from a police contact of a journalist in the Portuguese media. These were questions that the police intended to bring to Britain, to be put directly to the McCanns. I believe that The Mirror, The Daily Mail, and The Sun picked up this story a!so, The quote regarding the questions came directly from the crime correspondent of a prominent Portuguese newspaper. We often used him in fact to verify our information, as his material consistently proved accurate.
http://www.gerrymccannsblogs.co.uk/Nigel/sitebuilderfiles/witnessstatementofpadraicflanagan.pdf

The questions are listed in this Mail article and are not, on the whole, questions that were going to be asked of the McCanns holiday companions. They were certainly never intended for the McCanns.
http://www.gerrymccannsblogs.co.uk/press/6oct7/24_10_2007.htm

[Brietta]

One of the Express journalists was honest about where they got their stories. They seem to have relied on Portuguese journalists to brief them. Padraic Flanagan said;

With regard to specific exampies I wrote a story on 25 October 2007 regarding certain questions that the police wanted to put to the McCanns. This was sourced directly from a police contact of a journalist in the Portuguese media. These were questions that the police intended to bring to Britain, to be put directly to the McCanns. I believe that The Mirror, The Daily Mail, and The Sun picked up this story a!so, The quote regarding the questions came directly from the crime correspondent of a prominent Portuguese newspaper. We often used him in fact to verify our information, as his material consistently proved accurate.
http://www.gerrymccannsblogs.co.uk/Nigel/sitebuilderfiles/witnessstatementofpadraicflanagan.pdf

The questions are listed in this Mail article and are not, on the whole, questions that were going to be asked of the McCanns holiday companions. They were certainly never intended for the McCanns.
http://www.gerrymccannsblogs.co.uk/press/6oct7/24_10_2007.htm

All the journalists interviewed under oath gave a list of their sources and in David Piditch's transcript he goes into great detail of the lengths he went to to check and verify those souces and the information emanating from them.

All the journalists interviewed under oath detailed the role of the Portuguese police in the dissemination of that information.

Indeed Pilditch asserts under oath that senior detectives in the Portuguese police were briefing "off the record".

He also gives an opinion of the secrecy laws as they applied to Madeleine's case.  Just reading what he had to say is illuminating regarding the potential for use and abuse.

Wonder who the 'senior detectives' he mentioned are?

[G-Unit]

All the journalists interviewed under oath gave a list of their sources and in David Piditch's transcript he goes into great detail of the lengths he went to to check and verify those souces and the information emanating from them.

All the journalists interviewed under oath detailed the role of the Portuguese police in the dissemination of that information.

Indeed Pilditch asserts under oath that senior detectives in the Portuguese police were briefing "off the record".

He also gives an opinion of the secrecy laws as they applied to Madeleine's case.  Just reading what he had to say is illuminating regarding the potential for use and abuse.

Wonder who the 'senior detectives' he mentioned are?

All the journalists seem to have believed the Portuguese journalists who said they had contacts within the investigation. Whether the Portuguese journalists were telling the truth is another matter. The 'most senior' officers (see below) investigating Madeleine's disappearance? Encarnacao and Neves were the most senior, followed by Amaral.

Piditch names 3 sources;

I had three sources in Portugal who provided me with information. Two were Portuguese journalists who
were in daily contact with the most senior officers investigating Madeieine McCann’s disappearance. The third was a translator who worked for the Portuguese Police and translating and interpreting in the Portuguese legal system.

On every occasion, Portuguese police refused to comment on grounds that the inquiry was subject to
judicial secrecy.

Leicestershire Police...referred all journalists to their Portuguese counterparts - who refused to comment,

The aspect that made the case truly unusual was the wall of silence and lack of guidance to journalists from police both in Portugal and the UK

In the absence of these critical sources or official comment that could be attributed to a named police source or authority, I took steps to obtain the relevant information by the best available route. ~ approached news/TV reporters who had solid contacts within the Portuguese police for information on the investigation and relied on the services of Mr Mitchell as a third party spokesman for Drs McCann
https://www.gerrymccannsblogs.co.uk/Nigel/sitebuilderfiles/witnessstatementofdavidpilditch.pdf

[Brietta]

All the journalists seem to have believed the Portuguese journalists who said they had contacts within the investigation. Whether the Portuguese journalists were telling the truth is another matter. The 'most senior' officers (see below) investigating Madeleine's disappearance? Encarnacao and Neves were the most senior, followed by Amaral.

Piditch names 3 sources;

I had three sources in Portugal who provided me with information. Two were Portuguese journalists who
were in daily contact with the most senior officers investigating Madeieine McCann’s disappearance. The third was a translator who worked for the Portuguese Police and translating and interpreting in the Portuguese legal system.

On every occasion, Portuguese police refused to comment on grounds that the inquiry was subject to
judicial secrecy.

Leicestershire Police...referred all journalists to their Portuguese counterparts - who refused to comment,

The aspect that made the case truly unusual was the wall of silence and lack of guidance to journalists from police both in Portugal and the UK

In the absence of these critical sources or official comment that could be attributed to a named police source or authority, I took steps to obtain the relevant information by the best available route. ~ approached news/TV reporters who had solid contacts within the Portuguese police for information on the investigation and relied on the services of Mr Mitchell as a third party spokesman for Drs McCann
https://www.gerrymccannsblogs.co.uk/Nigel/sitebuilderfiles/witnessstatementofdavidpilditch.pdf

Senior officers of the Portuguese police are listed amongst informants by journalists under oath; and the Leveson inquiry has reinforced the certainty that Madeleine's DNA was not in the car hired by her parents weeks after she vanished.

Do you agree with both of those assertions?

[G-Unit]

Senior officers of the Portuguese police are listed amongst informants by journalists under oath; and the Leveson inquiry has reinforced the certainty that Madeleine's DNA was not in the car hired by her parents weeks after she vanished.

Do you agree with both of those assertions?

Journalist said under oath that they were told by Portuguese journalists that the PJ leaked. That doesn't mean the Portuguese journalists told the truth, of course. I found the mention of a translator being a source interesting.

I'm not sure about your second statement. I thought it was the '100% match' which caused problems? Not that I think that she or her DNA was in the car anyway.  It certainly wasn't on her bedroom windowsill either, as some stories said. The Portuguese journalist's sources let them down on that one.