I put those terms into Google and got JN "Jornal Noticias" and it really had a strongly worded article backing Moita Flores https://www.jn.pt/nacional/dossiers/o-caso-maddie-mccann/ultimas/interior/moita-flores-defende-goncalo-amaral-denunciado-atentado-a-liberdade-1468940.html
I found the following interesting regarding Moita Flores opinion; it gives a wider perspective in my opinion to the argument and certainly one which reflects similar views to some I have read, but not so succinctly put.
the hypothesis of slander f. 15.01.10
I have not read The Truth of the Lie, the book of PJ Gonçalo Amaral's former inspector on the Maddie case, and I am not following the judgment in which the prohibition, at the request of the McCanns, was decided to sell. I only know what the news says. For example, Moita Flores (also ex-PJ and current mayor of Santarém), as Amaral's defense witness, said that the book prohibits "an attempt to restrict freedom of expression" and that "constitutional rights do not can be attacked. "
What Moita Flores says is a tautology and a contradiction. A tautology, because it is obvious that forbidding a book is a restriction on freedom of expression. Any law that criminalizes defamation and slander is. In fact, it can be said that the entire Penal Code is an attack on individual freedom: does it fill a series of things that we can not do, otherwise we will be arrested or fined? Already to affirm that the constitutional rights "can not be attacked" is to forget that among them, besides the freedom of expression, is the good name and the honor. And it is in the adjustment between one and another that resides the rub of this case.
According to reports, the book "raises the suspicion that the parents of the child will have participated in the concealment of the corpse". Moita Flores is right when he says that it is not the fact that this thesis has not been accepted judicially that prevents its approach: much of investigative journalism deals with theses that justice fails to prove. Whether the book is slanderous or not depends on the seriousness and loyalty of the approach. What I do know is that while Amaral was the chief investigator of the case, the news published on the basis of police "sources" accused the McCanns of hiding their daughter's corpse and even of his death. The fact that, after leaving the PJ, Amaral published a book in this sense makes one suspect that it would be one of the sources of these accusations. If confirmed, this suspicion would make him the face of one of the crimes more committed and less investigated,
But of course, this is just a hypothesis. To assert it without proof would be slander. And if for Moita Flores (and Amaral and his publisher) to explore in a book the hypothesis that a mother and father are authors of a heinous thing is so acceptable, one does not understand why it insults against a judgment that, according to him, Amaral in putting the hypothesis of this one has decided to make money and fame to the account of the McCanns' entanglement. Unless we have for freedom and honor different weights as they are concerned "our" and "others." A matter of sympathy, therefore - but, until you see, sympathy is not a constitutional right.
( published today on dn )
https://jugular.blogs.sapo.pt/1494311.html
