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

[Brietta]

Invading the privacy ... ?

Is there some particular reason why you think journalists should have access to private details if the general public are to be denied?

If you consider laws have been breached, you have the option of reporting it to the authorities.  Somewhat akin to the report-to-moderator button.

It is the way in which the Portuguese system is set up.

Very possibly as a reaction to citizens having to live under an unaccountable fascist regime the new democracy went for as much openness as was humanly possible.
You know the thing ... no more being removed from a prison in the middle of the night to hazardous areas where one could run the risk of a tumble downstairs.

Was the secrecy law part and parcel of that?  Dunno, but to me it has turned out to epitomise the exact opposite of the openness and fairness it might have intended, with far too many opportunities to enable abuse by corrupt, manipulative people.

Part of the intended openness I believe was for those with an interest in the court case to have access to all the documentation available.  This was inclusive of journalists.

This was allowed under the penal code which was well understood.  For example, as explained by Paolo Reis.

I do not know of any cases where the law has been breached as it has been in Madeleine McCann's case.

Please don't be silly and ask me what I think about the law as it applies in Portugal ... that is for those to whom it applies.

Please desist from from asking me to complain about Portuguese laws being broken ... I think last time your criticism was along the lines I pop into Portimao and ask for my own copy of whatever.

It is a fact the Portuguese secrecy law has been flouted ... it appears to be a fact that no action has been taken against those who chose to do that. Unless you know different.

So please try to get over this apparent 'thing' you have about a lot of what I post which compels your attempt at put down. You are actually not very good at it.   It lends absolutely nothing to the debate - no caveat ... that is a fact.  Try to address the content of what I am posting not just your general irritation.
Just look at what you have written above.
Have you addressed my post?  I don't think so.
Have you attacked me?  I think so.  Please desist.  It is becoming far too predictable and tiresome.

[ShiningInLuz]

It is the way in which the Portuguese system is set up.

Very possibly as a reaction to citizens having to live under an unaccountable fascist regime the new democracy went for as much openness as was humanly possible.
You know the thing ... no more being removed from a prison in the middle of the night to hazardous areas where one could run the risk of a tumble downstairs.

Was the secrecy law part and parcel of that?  Dunno, but to me it has turned out to epitomise the exact opposite of the openness and fairness it might have intended, with far too many opportunities to enable abuse by corrupt, manipulative people.

Part of the intended openness I believe was for those with an interest in the court case to have access to all the documentation available.  This was inclusive of journalists.

This was allowed under the penal code which was well understood.  For example, as explained by Paolo Reis.

I do not know of any cases where the law has been breached as it has been in Madeleine McCann's case.

Please don't be silly and ask me what I think about the law as it applies in Portugal ... that is for those to whom it applies.

Please desist from from asking me to complain about Portuguese laws being broken ... I think last time your criticism was along the lines I pop into Portimao and ask for my own copy of whatever.

It is a fact the Portuguese secrecy law has been flouted ... it appears to be a fact that no action has been taken against those who chose to do that. Unless you know different.

So please try to get over this apparent 'thing' you have about a lot of what I post which compels your attempt at put down. You are actually not very good at it.   It lends absolutely nothing to the debate - no caveat ... that is a fact.  Try to address the content of what I am posting not just your general irritation.
Just look at what you have written above.
Have you addressed my post?  I don't think so.
Have you attacked me?  I think so.  Please desist.  It is becoming far too predictable and tiresome.

I haven't got a clue what you are ranting about.

If you think I have breached the forum rules then MODERATE, because that is what MODERATORS do.

In the absence of this, perhaps you would be kind enough to stop trying to impose your purely personal views on me.

This is the 4th or 5th recent occurrence where YOU have raised a point, then failed to provide a cite, failed to label it IYO, then chosen to try to castigate me for querying its content.

This is not the Brietta Broadcasting Community.  It is the UK Justice Forum.

[Brietta]

I haven't got a clue what you are ranting about.

I you think I have breached the forum rules then MODERATE, because that is what MODERATORS do.

In the absence of this, perhaps you would be kind enough to stop trying to impose your purely personal views on me.

This is the 4th or 5th recent occurrence where YOU have raised a point, then failed to provide a cite, failed to label it IYO, then chosen to try to castigate me for querying its content.

This is not the Brietta Broadcasting Community.  It is the UK Justice Forum.

In the main moderator privileges are not used as a debating tool on this forum where mods enjoy the great advantage of being allowed to enter into the debate with the other members. 

For that reason I shall desist from attempting any future discussion with you ... which I think is terribly sad on a discussion forum. 

Nor will I moderate any response you may choose to make to any of my future posts, I will report any I think may breach forum rules for other mods to decide. 

I shall of course continue to moderate your general comments to others and those in discussions in which I am not involved.

[G-Unit]

On an internet forum Paulo Reis was asked if there was an index accompanying the files on DVD, which he as a journalist had been given after Madeleine's case was archived and if so, would he be able to publish the content.

Quoting the Portuguese Penal Code; Paolo Reis explained he was unable to reproduce anything from the DVD unless it was as a precis in his own words or he risked two years imprisonment.

I've never understood why no-one among those responsible for internet publishing a substantial amount of information covered by the same legislation, did so with impunity ... it is not as if they were not easy enough to find.

Internet detectives have had a field day invading the privacy of everyone mentioned in the illegally published material.  Clearly that should not have happened ... but it did ... doesn't the fact there was no penalty make a bit of a mockery of a law that apparently cannot be enforced when it suits?

Really? No-one was penalised for posting downloadable copies of the Amaral and McCann books either. The reason in all these cases is probably the same; the difficulties of prosecuting people from another country.

[Robittybob1]

Both statements were recorded by the same Inspector, Hugo Silva, which would explain the similar sentence structure.

So is the inspector putting words down that are not actually said by the witness?

[Robittybob1]

I think the McCann case is a prime example of enduring "fake news".  It all began as a result of judicial secrecy creating a vacuum in which as suspicion of the McCanns was encouraged became filled with all sorts of tales of innuendo and downright lies.

Misinformation about the McCanns was not only tolerated, it was encouraged.  It has also stood the test of time with normally sensible people who would spot a con if not immediately but eventually and be outraged by it, still discussing clones and the arrangement of the pixels in the last photograph ten years down the line.
All the while studiously avoiding all the inconvenient facts which indicate without a doubt the inaccuracy of the core belief of McCann culpability.

Quote
It should be mentioned in passing that this case illustrates in an exuberant and paradigmatic way,
the long known risks and disadvantages that arise from “trial by newspapers”, which are not “fair
trials”, the “verdicts” of which lead, at times, to distort directly or indirectly, the course of the
investigation and have an effect of detracting attention and even assume, in certain sectors, aspects
of a global media orgy and anticipated blame of the those involved in the case as arguidos, with
disrespect for the persons’ dignity, including that of the missing girl herself.

As Professor Jorge de Figueiredo Dias commented in “Penal Process Law!, Volume 1, Coimbra
Editora, 1974 p.227 and following “This represents a violation of the most basic principles in our
penal law, by substituting the legal trial by court, the due process of law, by an absolutely illegal
and unconstitutional trial by newspaper. And it is a sociologically proven fact that the excess of
publicity of the penal process can even contribute to the creation of an informal system of “penal
justice without judgement” where it is clear, irreparable damage is done to the presumption of
innocence of the arguido and their fundamental guarantees.”
http://genreith.de/pj-archiving-2008.pdf

Might statements like that contained within it, explain why B-Detailed analysis was not translated into English at the same time as the rest of the document?

Was the B-Detailed analysis ever released at the same time as the file?

[Brietta]

Really? No-one was penalised for posting downloadable copies of the Amaral and McCann books either. The reason in all these cases is probably the same; the difficulties of prosecuting people from another country.

The individual authors or their publishers of the books you choose as an example had their intellectual property stolen by whoever broke copyright law when uploading and sharing them on the internet with others.

Breach of the Portuguese penal code is an offence against the Portuguese State and its people.  I would imagine a State would have more resources to protect the law of the land than an individual author might be able to command in an action to protect copyright.

However ... enough petty bickering.

Does anyone have any idea why Part B of the Archiving dispatch was left out of the first round of translation and put off till later.
I have suggested areas where it ties in with the secrecy laws which constrained Madeleine's parents which led to the mistaken belief they were hiding something.

No takers?

[Mr Gray]

So is the inspector putting words down that are not actually said by the witness?

I would say absolutely yes...imo
The McCann statements are also very similar
It seems as though the questioner asked a specific question and if the answer was yes then recorded the statement as though the witness had actually said those words

[Brietta]

Was the B-Detailed analysis ever released at the same time as the file?

It is part and parcel of the Archiving Dispatch ... it just was not translated into English when everything else was.

Why would that be?

[Robittybob1]

It is part and parcel of the Archiving Dispatch ... it just was not translated into English when everything else was.

Why would that be?

The translations I see are on a site "The McCann files"  If that site was against the McCanns maybe it was withheld from translation as it didn't suit the owner to publish it at the time.
http://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/PJ/TRANSLATIONS.htm  Just because the site is called the McCann files it doesn't imply they are run by the McCanns.

[G-Unit]

The individual authors or their publishers of the books you choose as an example had their intellectual property stolen by whoever broke copyright law when uploading and sharing them on the internet with others.

Breach of the Portuguese penal code is an offence against the Portuguese State and its people.  I would imagine a State would have more resources to protect the law of the land than an individual author might be able to command in an action to protect copyright.

However ... enough petty bickering.

Does anyone have any idea why Part B of the Archiving dispatch was left out of the first round of translation and put off till later.
I have suggested areas where it ties in with the secrecy laws which constrained Madeleine's parents which led to the mistaken belief they were hiding something.

No takers?

There are a variety of reasons why people weren't convinced by the McCann's story.

[Angelo222]

There are a variety of reasons why people weren't convinced by the McCann's story.

And still aren't convinced ten years on.  They say that actions speak louder than words which would appear to be very true in this case.  Maddie was abandoned to her fate many years ago.

[Robittybob1]

There are a variety of reasons why people weren't convinced by the McCann's story.

What about "There are a variety of reasons why people weren't convinced by the Wilkins' story".
http://genreith.de/pj-archiving-2008.pdf
"At 21.10, given her husband’s absence, Jane Tanner went to check on the state of her daughter. She
left by the reception and walked up the road that passes the entrance to the apartment block. She
was not seen by Gerald McCann, nor by Jeremy Wilkins, although she did see them. Gerald had his
back to her, however Wilkins was facing the place where Tanner passed."

If her husband was absent he wasn't actually in their apartment either in my understanding of the events.

[misty]

Was the B-Detailed analysis ever released at the same time as the file?

Is this part of it Brietta? (Scroll down for English)
http://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/PJ/OUSTROS_APENSOS_11_VOLUMES.htm

[Robittybob1]

I think the McCann case is a prime example of enduring "fake news".  It all began as a result of judicial secrecy creating a vacuum in which as suspicion of the McCanns was encouraged became filled with all sorts of tales of innuendo and downright lies.

Misinformation about the McCanns was not only tolerated, it was encouraged.  It has also stood the test of time with normally sensible people who would spot a con if not immediately but eventually and be outraged by it, still discussing clones and the arrangement of the pixels in the last photograph ten years down the line.
All the while studiously avoiding all the inconvenient facts which indicate without a doubt the inaccuracy of the core belief of McCann culpability.

Quote
It should be mentioned in passing that this case illustrates in an exuberant and paradigmatic way,
the long known risks and disadvantages that arise from “trial by newspapers”, which are not “fair
trials”, the “verdicts” of which lead, at times, to distort directly or indirectly, the course of the
investigation and have an effect of detracting attention and even assume, in certain sectors, aspects
of a global media orgy and anticipated blame of the those involved in the case as arguidos, with
disrespect for the persons’ dignity, including that of the missing girl herself.

As Professor Jorge de Figueiredo Dias commented in “Penal Process Law!, Volume 1, Coimbra
Editora, 1974 p.227 and following “This represents a violation of the most basic principles in our
penal law, by substituting the legal trial by court, the due process of law, by an absolutely illegal
and unconstitutional trial by newspaper. And it is a sociologically proven fact that the excess of
publicity of the penal process can even contribute to the creation of an informal system of “penal
justice without judgement” where it is clear, irreparable damage is done to the presumption of
innocence of the arguido and their fundamental guarantees.”
http://genreith.de/pj-archiving-2008.pdf

Might statements like that contained within it, explain why B-Detailed analysis was not translated into English at the same time as the rest of the document?

Do http://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/PJ/LEGAL_SUMMARY.htm and http://genreith.de/pj-archiving-2008.pdf have the same words?