Did the Daily Express apologise to Gonçalo Amaral?

[Mr Gray]

So same as the Sunday Times?

stephen made a specific claim that the express lied...that isn't true and that's the point I am addressing...so you would agree the Express has not been shown to have lied

[stephen25000]

UK Daily Express publishes written apology over headline calling Maddie cop a liar - See more at:



http://portugalresident.com/uk-daily-express-publishes-written-apology-over-headline-calling-maddie-cop-a-liar#sthash.tYejGotO.dpuf

[Brietta]

WRONG.           

and by the way, the Express has been licking the proverbial since their libel case with the mccanns, and supporting abduction, with no evidence whatsoever to back it.                                       

I don't think you have quite grasped the concept.

All British newspapers printed the same lies that the Express did about Madeleine's case for the simple reason that all relied on the same erroneous leaks from the Portuguese investigation that were being printed in the Portuguese press.
Had the Drs McCann been minded to ... they could have sued almost every publication in Britain for libel ... and they would have won for the simple reason that lies had been printed.


**Snip
The Daily Star said it was making a "wholehearted apology" to the couple for "stories suggesting the couple were responsible for, or may be responsible for, the death of their daughter Madeleine and covering it up".

It recognised "that such a suggestion is absolutely untrue and that Kate and Gerry are completely innocent of any involvement in their daughter's disappearance".

**Snip
Under the headline Kate and Gerry McCann: Sorry, the Express said it had apologised because "we accept that a number of articles in the newspaper have suggested that the couple caused the death of their missing daughter Madeleine and then covered it up", before acknowledging "there is no evidence whatsoever to support this theory".

**Snip
"There is nothing that has been said about the McCanns that could not have been published in a balanced way. It's when you move into over the top headlines and unbalanced reporting that you go beyond the protection that the libel laws give."
http://www.theguardian.com/media/2008/mar/19/dailyexpress.dailystar


Neither the Express nor any other British newspaper have been "licking the proverbial".  They have merely been complying with the law.
Which may perhaps explain why the Times recently paid out a substantial sum for printing a totally erroneous report without due diligence (there is a thread on this fiasco already on the forum).

The Express did not require to make any payment to Mr Amaral, nor did it require to make an apology to him ... why someone should have taken it upon himself to raise the issue which obviously had no substance on his behalf remains a puzzlement to me.
However ... it must by now be apparent that the Express did not apologise to Mr Amaral ... most contributors understood and got that by the third post on page one of the thread.

[Mr Gray]

UK Daily Express publishes written apology over headline calling Maddie cop a liar - See more at:



http://portugalresident.com/uk-daily-express-publishes-written-apology-over-headline-calling-maddie-cop-a-liar#sthash.tYejGotO.dpuf

the portugal resident lied....fact

[Brietta]

the portugal resident lied....fact

                            Golly gosh!!!  So unlike them to get things the wrong way round.

[stephen25000]

                            Golly gosh!!!  So unlike them to get things the wrong way round.

You mean like the Express and other tabloids telling the truth ?

[Brietta]

You mean like the Express and other tabloids telling the truth ?

I have decided that the overuse of smileys is indicative of ...  ...  ... je ne sais quoi LOL ...  ...  ... but something.

As you put it so eruditely??  "licking the proverbial " doesn't really come into it when there are libel laws in place.

My interpretation of that is that newspapers can't print downright lies without risk of being sued.  There again is the Portugal Resident actually a newspaper worth suing?
Isn't it more a free sheet type thing for ex pats?

[stephen25000]

I have decided that the overuse of smileys is indicative of ...  ...  ... je ne sais quoi LOL ...  ...  ... but something.

As you put it so eruditely??  "licking the proverbial " doesn't really come into it when there are libel laws in place.

My interpretation of that is that newspapers can't print downright lies without risk of being sued.  There again is the Portugal Resident actually a newspaper worth suing?
Isn't it more a free sheet type thing for ex pats?

You'll pleased to hear, decisions on your posts have been made as well.

As to the Portugal Resident, merely because it doesn't follow the mccann mantra, does not make it wrong.

I'm sure the Express proprietors can take the opportunity to sue those of the Resident.

[Mr Gray]

You'll pleased to hear, decisions on your posts have been made as well.

As to the Portugal Resident, merely because it doesn't follow the mccann mantra, does not make it wrong.

I'm sure the Express proprietors can take the opportunity to sue those of the Resident.

Looks like they have already been in touch with bennett

[Carana]

I have decided that the overuse of smileys is indicative of ...  ...  ... je ne sais quoi LOL ...  ...  ... but something.

As you put it so eruditely??  "licking the proverbial " doesn't really come into it when there are libel laws in place.

My interpretation of that is that newspapers can't print downright lies without risk of being sued.  There again is the Portugal Resident actually a newspaper worth suing?
Isn't it more a free sheet type thing for ex pats?

There is the Portugal Resident (which used to be the Algarve Resident). This was run at the time by a couple, but appears to have been taken over and IMO appears far less objective than it used to be. Numerous articles related to the Cipriano or the Madeleine case no longer appear to be online.

Portugal News is a different entity. Paul Luckman was the publisher and comes across (IMO) as a staunch Amaral supporter for whatever reason.

Brendan de Beer is / was the editor, but comes across to me as an objective journalist, who has frequently contributed to the Guardian, sometimes in association with others.

[Brietta]

There is the Portugal Resident (which used to be the Algarve Resident). This was run at the time by a couple, but appears to have been taken over and IMO appears far less objective than it used to be. Numerous articles related to the Cipriano or the Madeleine case no longer appear to be online.

Portugal News is a different entity. Paul Luckman was the publisher and comes across (IMO) as a staunch Amaral supporter for whatever reason.

Brendan de Beer is / was the editor, but comes across to me as an objective journalist, who has frequently contributed to the Guardian, sometimes in association with others.

Thanks Carana.

I have seen positive comment about Brendan de Beer's journalism as well as some criticism.  Which probably indicates that he is objective in his reporting as you can't suit everyone on every occasion.

The thing that sticks in my mind about Paul Luckman is his interview with Eamonn Holmes about burglaries which I found hilarious (the interview ... not the burglaries, which can be dangerous as well as traumatic).
Luckman was in denial and Holmes had just suffered a burglary.
I agree with your assessment of Luckman.

[ShiningInLuz]

Thanks Carana.

I have seen positive comment about Brendan de Beer's journalism as well as some criticism.  Which probably indicates that he is objective in his reporting as you can't suit everyone on every occasion.

The thing that sticks in my mind about Paul Luckman is his interview with Eamonn Holmes about burglaries which I found hilarious (the interview ... not the burglaries, which can be dangerous as well as traumatic).
Luckman was in denial and Holmes had just suffered a burglary.
I agree with your assessment of Luckman.

I'd suggest you take more into account when assessing Luckman, whatever then results.

I was looking at that video for something else a little while back, and the reality of what happened is somewhat different.

The news had come out that burglaries had been reported to UK police, I think by way of Crimewatch call lines.

So what source did Holmes think could magically explain 'more burglaries'?  Should Luckman have a source inside OG when clearly Holmes did not?  Should Luckman have had a source inside the PJ, when clearly Holmes did not?  Were all these crimes reported to the Portuguese police?  I don't know the answer.  Holmes did not know the answer.  Why is Luckman supposed to know?

If Holmes (or team) had done just a little bit of thinking they would have realised judicial secrecy laws should have prevented Luckman from getting this information.  Even if he had some info, asking him to say on camera that he was probably breaking the law in doing so is hardly an intelligent approach.

My personal assessment is that framing the question in such a way live on-line is about as dumb as it gets.  If Holmes actually thinks Luckman has more information, he should have got it off-line, then simply trotted out "a source close to the investigation informed us ...".

I don't think this interview shows Luckman in a bad light.  I do think the approach used by Holmes was ill-thought out.  As to the capability of Luckman or Holmes in general, I have no evidence or opinion.

Speaking personally, I would take the article as an apology, irrespective of whether certain specific words were used.  If a newspaper prints that someone lied, and then is forced to retract that in a subsequent statement, the apology might be half-hearted, but taking the meaning of the whole text into account, it is there.

Since we are supposedly united in justice for Madeleine, getting rid of such mistruths is a small step of progress.

For the record, I am neither an Amaral supporter or detractor.  I don't have enough evidence to form a valid opinion, and I have no interest in wading through hours of case material etc. to come to a conclusion on this.

[Brietta]

I'd suggest you take more into account when assessing Luckman, whatever then results.

I was looking at that video for something else a little while back, and the reality of what happened is somewhat different.

The news had come out that burglaries had been reported to UK police, I think by way of Crimewatch call lines.

So what source did Holmes think could magically explain 'more burglaries'?  Should Luckman have a source inside OG when clearly Holmes did not?  Should Luckman have had a source inside the PJ, when clearly Holmes did not?  Were all these crimes reported to the Portuguese police?  I don't know the answer.  Holmes did not know the answer.  Why is Luckman supposed to know?

If Holmes (or team) had done just a little bit of thinking they would have realised judicial secrecy laws should have prevented Luckman from getting this information.  Even if he had some info, asking him to say on camera that he was probably breaking the law in doing so is hardly an intelligent approach.

My personal assessment is that framing the question in such a way live on-line is about as dumb as it gets.  If Holmes actually thinks Luckman has more information, he should have got it off-line, then simply trotted out "a source close to the investigation informed us ...".

I don't think this interview shows Luckman in a bad light.  I do think the approach used by Holmes was ill-thought out.  As to the capability of Luckman or Holmes in general, I have no evidence or opinion.

Speaking personally, I would take the article as an apology, irrespective of whether certain specific words were used.  If a newspaper prints that someone lied, and then is forced to retract that in a subsequent statement, the apology might be half-hearted, but taking the meaning of the whole text into account, it is there.

Since we are supposedly united in justice for Madeleine, getting rid of such mistruths is a small step of progress.

For the record, I am neither an Amaral supporter or detractor.  I don't have enough evidence to form a valid opinion, and I have no interest in wading through hours of case material etc. to come to a conclusion on this.

With respect, I really do not see where judicial secrecy comes into the equation ... if it did ... Luckman was surely at liberty to say as much to Holmes and answer those questions he could.

He gave an interview on the same subject to BBC radio the transcript can be read and the audio can be listened to here ... http://www.gerrymccannsblogs.co.uk/press/84april14/5Live_24_04_2014.htm ... in which he mentioned no constraints of secrecy but with his negative signature as regards any progress in Madeleine's case well to the fore.

One thing I found interesting was his confirmation of the sharing of information not only with the Met but with Madeleine's parents.


**Snip
Em we had a situation where er the Met stated that the police, the Portuguese police had not told them about a Cape Verdian who apparently was accused of three rapes of children and yet we had it directly from the police that in fact they had briefed the Met and the McCanns 6 months earlier in Lisbon even with a power point presentation on this case so these things don't do an awful lot to help relations and uh lets see what happens.

[ShiningInLuz]

With respect, I really do not see where judicial secrecy comes into the equation ... if it did ... Luckman was surely at liberty to say as much to Holmes and answer those questions he could.

He gave an interview on the same subject to BBC radio the transcript can be read and the audio can be listened to here ... http://www.gerrymccannsblogs.co.uk/press/84april14/5Live_24_04_2014.htm ... in which he mentioned no constraints of secrecy but with his negative signature as regards any progress in Madeleine's case well to the fore.

One thing I found interesting was his confirmation of the sharing of information not only with the Met but with Madeleine's parents.


**Snip
Em we had a situation where er the Met stated that the police, the Portuguese police had not told them about a Cape Verdian who apparently was accused of three rapes of children and yet we had it directly from the police that in fact they had briefed the Met and the McCanns 6 months earlier in Lisbon even with a power point presentation on this case so these things don't do an awful lot to help relations and uh lets see what happens.

On the Holmes front Luckman should have pointed out 1) judicial secrecy 2) simply state that he had, at that time, no information.  Holmes was treating Luckman as the 'knowledgeable' source on the Algarve.  Your link makes it clear that Luckman thought the Portuguese media was one of his sources, better informed than he was.  He should have pointed that out to Holmes.  Further, if there was anything in the Portuguese media about it at the time, he should have said "according to Portuguese media sources ..."

I don't know whether there was much or anything about it in the Portuguese media at the time.  I don't read Portuguese newspapers on a regular basis.  I seldom watch Portuguese news on TV.  So I am not stating an idea I don't know about as fact.

I do know that the airing of Crimewatch 2013 and the Smithman e-fits were told about on Portuguese TV.  However, I cannot find anything other than minor stories that do not put these e-fits into real context.

Let me move on to the link you posted, Brietta.  Many thanks for that.

I have copied the bit that immediately precedes your quote.

"PL – Yes, totally em this, this suggestion that they're not. I read headlines in the UK this morning arrests imminent … complete nonsense em the, the Met cannot make and I am sure they're not even claiming, they can't come into Portugal to make arrests mm you'll remember we had a situation like this 2, 3 months ago where there was mass coverage and they were arriving to make arrests and it just petered into nothing, there was nothing it was just a regular visit."

What do we have in the mix now?

UK press gets checked by Luckman, and supposedly reporting imminent arrests.  Luckman points out this is nonsense.

He then goes on in your section to discuss what Cape Verde man has or has not been up to.  Luckman claims that SY are ignorant of CVman being involved in multiple child rape cases.  He also asserts that this supposed ignorance is untrue, claiming that the Met and the McCanns were given a Powerpoint briefing months earlier. According to Portuguese sources who are better placed than him.

Assuming Portuguese media is correct, one CVman was investigated by the PJ team from Oporto, but was subsequently cleared.

Why the Porto team would brief the McCanns is beyond me.  I can see them briefing OG, but I cannot see them briefing the McCanns.

The final bit is simple.  Was CVman ever investigated for raping 3 children?  I haven't seen that allegation anywhere, not in Portuguese media, and not in the UK media who would have had it as front page news.

in Holmes v Luckman, Luckman should simply have quoted judicial secrecy, and stated that he could not confirm OG claims re break-ins.  Holmes did not cover himself in glory with his approach.

Trying to pick useful information out of this lot is like sifting through a train wreck.