Gonçalo Amaral confirms he will appeal the damages decision to higher Court.

[ferryman]

Yes it is.  There is no way the AG could make that determination since even the crime if any is unknown.  In any event, he made it crystal clear that the McCanns lost the opportunity to prove/confirm/corroborate what they claimed by the actions of their friends in refusing to cooperate with the investigation.

It seems evident to us and because the files contain enough elements for such, that the crime of exposure or abandonment according to article 138 of the Penal Code can be eliminated from that range:

"1 - Whoever places another person's life in danger,
a) By exposing her in a location where she is subject to a situation from which she, on her own, cannot defend herself against; or
b) Abandoning her without defence, whenever the agent had the duty to guard her, to watch over her or to assist her;"

This legal type of crime is only fulfilled with intent, and this intent has to cover the creation of danger to the victim's life, as well as the absence of a capacity to defend herself, on the victim's behalf. In the case of the files and facing the elements that were collected it is evident that none of the arguidos Gerald or Kate acted with intent. The parents could not foresee that in the resort that they chose to spend a brief holiday, they could place the life of any of their children in danger, nor was that demanded from them: it was located in a peaceful area, where most of the residents are foreign citizens of the same nationality and without any known history of this type of criminality.

The parents didn't even represent the realisation of the fact, they trusted that everything would go well, as it had gone on the previous evenings, thus not equating, nor was it demanded from them, the possibility of the occurrence of an abduction of any of the children that were in their respective apartments.

Reinforcing what was said is also the fact that despite leaving their daughter alone with her siblings in the apartment during more or less dilated moments, it is certain that in any case they checked on them. Without any pretension or compensatory effect, we must also recognise that the parents already expiate a heavy penalty - the disappearance of Madeleine - due to their lack of caution in the surveillance and protection of their children.

Concerning the other indicated crimes, they are no more than that and despite our perception that, due to its high degree of probability, the occurrence of a homicide cannot be discarded, such cannot be more than a mere supposition, due to the lack of sustaining elements in the files.

The non involvement of the arguidos parents of Madeleine in any penally relevant action seems to result from the objective circumstances of them not being inside the apartment when she disappeared, from the normal behaviour that they adopted until said disappearance and afterwards, as can be amply concluded from the witness statements, from the telephone communications analysis and also from the forensics' conclusions, namely the Reports from the FSS and from the National Institute for Legal Medicine.

To this can be added that, in reality, none of the indications that led to their constitution as arguidos was later confirmed or consolidated. If not, let us see: the information concerning a previous alert of the media before the polices was not confirmed, the traces that were marked by the dogs were not ratified in laboratory, and the initial indications from the above transcribed email, better clarified at a later date, ended up being revealed as innocuous.

Even if, hypothetically, one could admit that Gerald and Kate McCann might be responsible over the child's death, it would still have to be explained how, where through, when, with what means, with the help of whom and where to they freed themselves of her body within the restricted time frame that would have been available to them to do so. Their daily routine, until the 3rd of May, had been circumscribed to the narrow borders of the 'Ocean Club' resort and to the beach that lies next to it, unknowing the surrounding terrain and, apart from the English friends that were with them on holiday there, they had no known friends or contacts in Portugal.


(Portuguese prosecutors)

[Angelo222]

It seems evident to us and because the files contain enough elements for such, that the crime of exposure or abandonment according to article 138 of the Penal Code can be eliminated from that range:

"1 - Whoever places another person's life in danger,
a) By exposing her in a location where she is subject to a situation from which she, on her own, cannot defend herself against; or
b) Abandoning her without defence, whenever the agent had the duty to guard her, to watch over her or to assist her;"

This legal type of crime is only fulfilled with intent, and this intent has to cover the creation of danger to the victim's life, as well as the absence of a capacity to defend herself, on the victim's behalf. In the case of the files and facing the elements that were collected it is evident that none of the arguidos Gerald or Kate acted with intent. The parents could not foresee that in the resort that they chose to spend a brief holiday, they could place the life of any of their children in danger, nor was that demanded from them: it was located in a peaceful area, where most of the residents are foreign citizens of the same nationality and without any known history of this type of criminality.

The parents didn't even represent the realisation of the fact, they trusted that everything would go well, as it had gone on the previous evenings, thus not equating, nor was it demanded from them, the possibility of the occurrence of an abduction of any of the children that were in their respective apartments.

Reinforcing what was said is also the fact that despite leaving their daughter alone with her siblings in the apartment during more or less dilated moments, it is certain that in any case they checked on them. Without any pretension or compensatory effect, we must also recognise that the parents already expiate a heavy penalty - the disappearance of Madeleine - due to their lack of caution in the surveillance and protection of their children.

Concerning the other indicated crimes, they are no more than that and despite our perception that, due to its high degree of probability, the occurrence of a homicide cannot be discarded, such cannot be more than a mere supposition, due to the lack of sustaining elements in the files.

The non involvement of the arguidos parents of Madeleine in any penally relevant action seems to result from the objective circumstances of them not being inside the apartment when she disappeared, from the normal behaviour that they adopted until said disappearance and afterwards, as can be amply concluded from the witness statements, from the telephone communications analysis and also from the forensics' conclusions, namely the Reports from the FSS and from the National Institute for Legal Medicine.

To this can be added that, in reality, none of the indications that led to their constitution as arguidos was later confirmed or consolidated. If not, let us see: the information concerning a previous alert of the media before the polices was not confirmed, the traces that were marked by the dogs were not ratified in laboratory, and the initial indications from the above transcribed email, better clarified at a later date, ended up being revealed as innocuous.

Even if, hypothetically, one could admit that Gerald and Kate McCann might be responsible over the child's death, it would still have to be explained how, where through, when, with what means, with the help of whom and where to they freed themselves of her body within the restricted time frame that would have been available to them to do so. Their daily routine, until the 3rd of May, had been circumscribed to the narrow borders of the 'Ocean Club' resort and to the beach that lies next to it, unknowing the surrounding terrain and, apart from the English friends that were with them on holiday there, they had no known friends or contacts in Portugal.


(Portuguese prosecutors)

That extract is primarily to do with the potential wilful neglect charge.  As I stated previously, the crime if any is unknown so in the absence of any proof the AG was not in a position to clear anyon in respect of her disappearance.

What the prosecutors did state is that there is no proof that the McCanns were implicated in their daughter's disappearance, not that they were cleared as you claimed.

[Brietta]

I agree. Money doesn't buy happiness or restore a reputation. Had an ordinary citizen written the same book as Amaral no award would have been made. He paid for what he said as because he was an ex policeman, no other reason.

I'm not absolutely sure that even under Portuguese Law an ordinary citizen could have written the same book an got off without getting his/her knuckles rapped for  ...
(a)  impersonating a police officer 
(b)  telling downright lies ... and I think you miss entirely that Mr Amaral's book was written because he was a high ranking police officer and as a result carried weight which a book written by a civilian would not.

Oh and as you have pointed out as an ex- police officer ... he broke the law.

As well as being unlawful, imo writing a book of that nature showed particular stupidity and arrogance ... his friend Paulo Pereira Cristóvão kept his nose clean on that occasion by billing his book on Madeleine McCann as fiction.

[ferryman]

The prosecutors went out of their way to dismiss abandonment from the range of possible charges, clearly indicating that they didn't even consider TheMcCannsdunsomethingdreadfulandcovereditup.

[G-Unit]

I'm not absolutely sure that even under Portuguese Law an ordinary citizen could have written the same book an got off without getting his/her knuckles rapped for  ...
(a)  impersonating a police officer 
(b)  telling downright lies ... and I think you miss entirely that Mr Amaral's book was written because he was a high ranking police officer and as a result carried weight which a book written by a civilian would not.

Oh and as you have pointed out as an ex- police officer ... he broke the law.

As well as being unlawful, imo writing a book of that nature showed particular stupidity and arrogance ... his friend Paulo Pereira Cristóvão kept his nose clean on that occasion by billing his book on Madeleine McCann as fiction.

So you assume I meant an ordinary citizen might have written a book saying he was a police officer? To use one of your favourite sayings, don't be ridiculous. Had an ordinary citizen used the PJ files to write a book and reached the same conclusion there would have been no award. Lying was not mentioned in the judgement or the proven facts, so immaterial. Amaral says he wrote the book the PJ and investigators were criticised and no-one supported them.
Until the appeal is heard it is the opinion of one judge that Amaral broke the law. Others may take a different view.

[Jean-Pierre]

So you assume I meant an ordinary citizen might have written a book saying he was a police officer? To use one of your favourite sayings, don't be ridiculous. Had an ordinary citizen used the PJ files to write a book and reached the same conclusion there would have been no award. Lying was not mentioned in the judgement or the proven facts, so immaterial. Amaral says he wrote the book the PJ and investigators were criticised and no-one supported them.
Until the appeal is heard it is the opinion of one judge that Amaral broke the law. Others may take a different view.

A book written by an ordinary citizen would

(a) not have attracted a publisher

(b) it would have sold a handful of copies.

(c) It would not have created the storm that Amarals book clearly did (we can argue til the cows come home about the accuracy but it did attract attention)

And entirely because he was the police officer coordinating this case. his book and documentary sold.

Police officers simply cannot be permitted to write such books, for obvious reasons.

[Brietta]

So you assume I meant an ordinary citizen might have written a book saying he was a police officer? To use one of your favourite sayings, don't be ridiculous. Had an ordinary citizen used the PJ files to write a book and reached the same conclusion there would have been no award. Lying was not mentioned in the judgement or the proven facts, so immaterial. Amaral says he wrote the book the PJ and investigators were criticised and no-one supported them.
Until the appeal is heard it is the opinion of one judge that Amaral broke the law. Others may take a different view.

                              The words you used were "the same book as Amaral".

The Judge restricted herself to points of law in making her judgement against him ... it will be interesting to see what tack his legal team will take when taking that into consideration in applying for appeal.

[ferryman]

                              The words you used were "the same book as Amaral".

The Judge restricted herself to points of law in making her judgement against him ... it will be interesting to see what tack his legal team will take when taking that into consideration in applying for appeal.

D'Accord!

Can someone please explain how a book written by the former lead investigator into the disappearance of a little girl that proclaims she is definitely dead, that her parents know she is dead and caused her death, disposed of and hid her body, simulated an 'abduction' and launched a fraudulent 'appeal' in their (dead!) daughter's name can have done other than harm the search for her.

I mean, how hard should anyone have to try to 'prove' such a thing?

And why should not Amaral be invited to go forth and multiply in respect of his application to have the same old lies re-hashed in front of a different judge at some far-distant time?

[Brietta]

A book written by an ordinary citizen would

(a) not have attracted a publisher

(b) it would have sold a handful of copies.

(c) It would not have created the storm that Amarals book clearly did (we can argue til the cows come home about the accuracy but it did attract attention)

And entirely because he was the police officer coordinating this case. his book and documentary sold.

Police officers simply cannot be permitted to write such books, for obvious reasons.

I would think it would be perverting the course of justice, JP.

There are already miscarriages of justice which is bad enough ... but I think it would be complete anarchy if senior police officers were allowed to write books such as Mr Amaral's accusing people against whom there is no evidence.

[Carana]

I would think it would be perverting the course of justice, JP.

There are already miscarriages of justice which is bad enough ... but I think it would be complete anarchy if senior police officers were allowed to write books such as Mr Amaral's accusing people against whom there is no evidence.

I doubt that any of us here have a problem with the responsible use of the right to freedom of expression / press.

I'll only post the link to this as it's no doubt straying off topic...

http://news.sky.com/story/1494572/ex-wife-facebook-threats-conviction-quashed

[G-Unit]

D'Accord!

Can someone please explain how a book written by the former lead investigator into the disappearance of a little girl that proclaims she is definitely dead, that her parents know she is dead and caused her death, disposed of and hid her body, simulated an 'abduction' and launched a fraudulent 'appeal' in their (dead!) daughter's name can have done other than harm the search for her.

I mean, how hard should anyone have to try to 'prove' such a thing?

And why should not Amaral be invited to go forth and multiply in respect of his application to have the same old lies re-hashed in front of a different judge at some far-distant time?

It was found not proved that the book harmed the search and no award was made for that.

[Carana]

It was found not proved that the book harmed the search and no award was made for that.

If you had been in that situation, how do you think that you could you have proved that it had?

[G-Unit]

If you had been in that situation, how do you think that you could you have proved that it had?

Why ask me?

[ferryman]

Did we agree the deadline for submission was 8th June?

[Mr Gray]

It was found not proved that the book harmed the search and no award was made for that.

but it was found that amaral has to pay damages...you seem to want to accept some parts of the judgement but not other parts...the bits that suit your point of view