How hilarious that we may not accuse Amaral of lying in his book in which he accuses the parents of a missing child of lying!
Perhaps this will help you to understand. It's from the Appeal Judgment on the book banning injunction. It says that interpreting the facts of the investigation in a different way is legitimate in a literary work so long as it doesn't affect anyone's rights,
and it didn't. That ruling was upheld by the Supreme Court, so the question of the book damaging the McCann's rights is dead in the water since 2010. That's why the re-banning was so strange, as it contradicted the earlier findings of both the Appeal and Supreme Courts.
it seems to be important to stress the following: the
indicative facts that led to the applicants’ constitution as arguidos within the inquiry
were later on not valued by the Public Ministry’s Magistrates
in order to lead to a criminal accusation, but those very same facts, seen through another prism and with another base,
may lead to a different conclusion from that which was attained by those same Magistrates – those are indications that were deemed to be insufficient in terms of evidence in a criminal investigation, but they can be appreciated in a different way,
in an interpretation that is legitimate to be published as a literary work, as long as said interpretation does not offend any fundamental rights of anyone involved – and we have written above already why we understand that
said interpretation does not offend the applicants’ rights.
