Did Gonçalo Amaral break any secrecy laws by publishing his book?

[ferryman]

Loach: book was published 3 days after Port police closed case saying no evidence of McCann involvement and "destroyed all that."

So Amaral didn't breach rules of secrecy?

That's good ...

[Redblossom]

Just mulling over Mrs Hubbards testimony...she asked how was he allowed to publish the book without  any facts

Dear

A) He worked the case so had the facts from the files, doh

B) Who do you think he should have asked permission off?

 

[stephen25000]

Just mulling over Mrs Hubbards testimony...she asked how was he allowed to publish the book without  any facts

Dear

A) He worked the case so had the facts from the files, doh

B) Who do you think he should have asked permission off?

 

These people are unbelievable in their arrogance and stupidity.

[Mo Stache]

Just mulling over Mrs Hubbards testimony...she asked how was he allowed to publish the book without  any facts

Dear

A) He worked the case so had the facts from the files, doh

B) Who do you think he should have asked permission off?

 

He used police file material to publish a book BEFORE it was released to the public WHILE it was still under the secrecy law. But that does not change the fact that he DID publish material that is contradictory to the police files.
If you research the date of publication and the date of release to public, you will see that the book was written while the case was still under secrecy law. The material was used while the case was still under secrecy.
If you read the files, you will note that he incorrectly interprets forensics and makes other crucial errors. 

[Redblossom]

He used police file material to publish a book BEFORE it was released to the public WHILE it was still under the secrecy law. But that does not change the fact that he DID publish material that is contradictory to the police files.
If you research the date of publication and the date of release to public, you will see that the book was written while the case was still under secrecy law. The material was used while the case was still under secrecy.
If you read the files, you will note that he incorrectly interprets forensics and makes other crucial errors.

Mountains out of molehills

Preparing a book in private is not breaking any law
Was Emma Loach mistaken then when she testified the book was published three days AFTER the case was closed?

Petty nothings....and Mccanns/Duarte brought a case against Amaral for breaching secrecy laws and they were sent away with a flea in their ear, that should tell you all you need to know here

If you are soooo concerned about the secrecy of justice laws, go write to Jane Tanner about her doing so eight months before the case was closed!

ETA oh btw I suppose you have no problem with any lies in Kate Mccans book? Of course not..

[Mo Stache]

Mountains out of molehills

Preparing a book in private is not breaking any law
Was Emma Loach mistaken then when she testified the book was published three days AFTER the case was closed?

Petty nothings....and Mccanns/Duarte brought a case against Amaral for breaching secrecy laws and they were sent away with a flea in their ear, that should tell you all you need to know here

If you are soooo concerned about the secrecy of justice laws, go write to Jane Tanner about her doing so eight months before the case was closed!

Please provide the proof that a judge dismissed Amaral for breaching secrecy laws.
Red. One has to actually write the book and have it ready for publication. The book was WRITTEN within the period discussed and published 3 days after, but that does not justify the use of material WRITTEN/USED while the case was under secrecy. Or do you think Amaral wrote the entire book in the three days after secrecy was lifted to meet a deadline for publication? Because that is what you are saying.   

Strange how it's always "petty nothings" when it shows up the wrongs done by Amaral and Co.   

p.s. Jane Tanner did not make money by using material from the files, in a book.

[Redblossom]

Please provide the proof that a judge dismissed Amaral for breaching secrecy laws.
Red. One has to actually write the book and have it ready for publication. The book was WRITTEN within the period discussed and published 3 days after, but that does not justify the use of material WRITTEN/USED while the case was under secrecy. Or do you think Amaral wrote the entire book in the three days after secrecy was lifted to meet a deadline for publication? Because that is what you are saying.   

Strange how it's always "petty nothings" when it shows up the wrongs done by Amaral and Co.   

p.s. Jane Tanner did not make money by using material from the files, in a book.

Oh I see now, your problem is money making not the law, OK. as for Duartes case, it never even got to court! Too weak, and vexatious obviously!

http://joana-morais.blogspot.com/2010/01/attempt-to-breach-secrecy-of-justice.html?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+JoanaMorais+%28Joana+Morais%29&utm_content=Twitter

[Mo Stache]

Oh I see now, your problem is money making not the law, OK. as for Duartes case, it never even got to court! Too weak, and vexatious obviously!

http://joana-morais.blogspot.com/2010/01/attempt-to-breach-secrecy-of-justice.html?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+JoanaMorais+%28Joana+Morais%29&utm_content=Twitter

No, you twist to suite your own agenda. It is about the law. And if you read the material you posted via that link, you will see, the book was in breach of the secrecy law but everyone is only concentrating on the publishing date.
The fact is the book was compiled with the help of material that was not Amarals to have.

Let me break it down for you Red, as it seems you just can't understand it.

Material >  use material to write book >  book completed (which was still under secrecy)> sent to publisher > they waited for a few days > then they published it.

The book was not written in the three days between secrecy being lifted and publishing date. And the issue of him being in breach of secrecy is still an ongoing issue. Simples!!

And by the way! Where is Ms Morais, Amarals no.1 supporter and fan? She was instrumental in spreading the damage far and wide.   

[Redblossom]

No, you twist to suite your own agenda. It is about the law. And if you read the material you posted via that link, you will see, the book was in breach of the secrecy law but everyone is only concentrating on the publishing date.
The fact is the book was compiled with the help of material that was not Amarals to have.

Let me break it down for you Red, as it seems you just can't understand it.

Material >  use material to write book >  book completed (which was still under secrecy)> sent to publisher > they waited for a few days > then they published it.

The book was not written in the three days between secrecy being lifted and publishing date. And the issue of him being in breach of secrecy is still an ongoing issue. Simples!!

And by the way! Where is Ms Morais, Amarals no.1 supporter and fan? She was instrumental in spreading the damage far and wide.

Youre getting boring.There is no such thing as material Amaral was not supposed to have....he was in the case until October 07, the book contains info only up until October 07, and no one said he wrote it in three days either, end of, time for you to get off this silly pathetic pedantic little hobby horse of yours

As for Joana Morais, why not email her and ask her what she is doing, how would I know?  joana Morais has reported on the case via her blog for years, using media stories, and facts,  hardly damaging,but only people like you see it as such, not my problem mate
 
 

[Carana]

The legal summary was signed on 21.07.08

When was his book officially launched?

[DCI]

The legal summary was signed on 21.07.08

When was his book officially launched?

24 July 2008, released to the public on 4 August 2008!

[Mr Gray]

Its obvious that someone in the PJ was breaking secrecy laws when they were feeding information to the Portuguese press.

[Angelo222]

Its obvious that someone in the PJ was breaking secrecy laws when they were feeding information to the Portuguese press.

By all accounts the British Press were getting inside information even before the PJ got it and who was that down to ??

[Carana]

By all accounts the British Press were getting inside information even before the PJ got it and who was that down to ??

Were they? What type of "inside information"?

[stephen25000]

Were they? What type of "inside information"?