The McCann v Gonçalo Amaral libel trial as it happens.

[Alfred R Jones]

Fatima de Oliveira Esteves, representing publisher Guerra e Paz, admitted that Mr Amaral 'appeared to have invented' much of the book.

[Mr Gray]

Fatima de Oliveira Esteves, representing publisher Guerra e Paz, admitted that Mr Amaral 'appeared to have invented' much of the book.

that statement does rather  stand out doesn't it

[Alfred R Jones]

that statement does rather  stand out doesn't it

Hilarious that his own publisher clearly thinks the book's a crock.

[ferryman]

What scandalous misuse of the word "earned" by Isabel Duarte's deputy ...

[Carana]

"Mr Correia Afonso said the ex-detective made £270,000 from sales of his book in Portugal and £18,000 from sales abroad.

He earned £26,000 from the broadcasting of the documentary, watched by 2.2m viewers in April 2009, and another £28,000 from sales of a DVD."


Were all his interviews (including the one which Sky turned down at €80k), his matinée appearances and his column in CdaM all for free then? Or aren't those included in the case?

[Carana]

What scandalous misuse of the word "earned" by Isabel Duarte's deputy ...

That's not a direct quote, though. The issue is "gained", whatever the term used.

[ferryman]

That's not a direct quote, though. The issue is "gained", whatever the term used.

True.

We'll have The Mail's man led off and shot, then.

[stephen25000]

'That lack of cooperation led to the archiving of the investigation.'

Key words indeed.

[ferryman]

'That lack of cooperation led to the archiving of the investigation.'

Key words indeed.

Lack of evidence of (well!) anything led to the archiving of the process ...

[Montclair]

Fatima de Oliveira Esteves, representing publisher Guerra e Paz, admitted that Mr Amaral 'appeared to have invented' much of the book.

The Daily Mail obviously does not understand irony!

[VIXTE]

Fatima de Oliveira Esteves, representing publisher Guerra e Paz, admitted that Mr Amaral 'appeared to have invented' much of the book.

She said it all. Finally.

[stephen25000]

But Miguel Cruz Rodrigues, for Mr Amaral, said the McCanns were suing 'to rid themselves of guilt for their negligent conduct and their conduct in relation to the investigation.


Nice.

[Alfred R Jones]

She said it all. Finally.

Even if the McCanns lose the case it will all have been worth quite a lot to have had that admission at least.

[Carana]

He added: 'There was a lack of cooperation with the police authorities.

'That lack of cooperation led to the archiving of the investigation.'

Kate had taken her lawyer's advice not to answer the arguido questions, some of which were leading and could easily have been misconstrued, particularly when noted in reported speech.

If she had answered, there is no way that the PJ would have been satisfied and then huddled over to concert over alternative potential suspects.

That was it. He hadn't organised a reconstruction, so that doesn't even come into the equation during his tenure.

If the foot didn't fit into the slipper, use a bigger shoehorn.

[John]

McCanns' complaint in the final allegations

Jornal de Notícias (paper edition)
December 10, 2014
by Óscar Queirós

With the final allegations taking place today, at Palácio da Justiça, in Lisbon, it's coming to an end the process of the alleged complaint for defamation made by the McCanns, Maddie's parents, against Gonçalo Amaral, in which the McCann couple asks for a millionaire compensation from the former PJ coordinator.

This process was born with the publication of the book “Maddie, a Verdade da Mentira” [Maddie, the Truth of the Lie], written by Gonçalo Amaral , considered by the English couple as defamatory and an “affront”. As to the former PJ coordinator what is in question is “his right to freedom of expression and of opinion”, and he remains confident “in the Portuguese justice”.

In a statement to JN on the trial that has lasted five years, the former PJ coordinator considers that the couple's goal, apart from an eventual monetary compensation, is to “convert the trial in an exoneration of their own responsibilities in the disappearance of their daughter”. And he justifies his opinion stating that “throughout these last five years they have attempted to convey the idea that this trial is about their innocence, when legally that is not what is at stake” since what is being argued at the trial is the “lawfulness or unlawfulness of the book I wrote and, and if so, whether it is possible to establish a causality link between the book and the possible damages they allege to have suffered”.