How did Amaral's claims damage the McCann's right to reputation? His book said nothing new. it had all been said before, as the first judge commented;
Now the thesis that the minor died accidentally in the apartment and that this fact was hidden by her parents, who spread and fed, in order to deceive, an hypothesis of abduction, is not new, there's nothing new neither in the book, in the interview or in the documentary.
One wonders then what is the difference between 1) asserting – as it was done at a certain step of the investigation or as many commentators do – that there are indices of accidental death, concealment of the corpse and simulation of crime and 2) supporting this view as did the defendant Goncalo Amaral in those three mediums.
Page 34 http://miscarriageofjustice.co/index.php?topic=6307.0
The only difference in my opinion is that the McCanns chose to sue him. What's the difference in your opinion?
Not true. The book is littered with claims that have never been made before.
For instance. Only Amaral claims that Madeleine questioned her parents on the morning of 2nd May and that she didn't mention Sean when she spoke to them.
IMO Both claims are untrue and gives the reader a completely false impression of what happened.
IMO Facts are distorted, vital facts are left out in order to change true meanings and the vindictive innuendo throughout is blatant.
If he'd read the files then the Judge must have had his tongue firmly in his cheek if he claimed that the book was based mainly on them.
IMO The whole book was based on what Amaral WISHED was in the files.
How anyone can read his book AND the files and then claim that the contents of the book... '
had all been said before' ...is beyond my comprehension.
AIMHO
