Author Topic: McCann v Gonçalo Amaral libel hearing witness Luis Froes  (Read 3646 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Online John

McCann v Gonçalo Amaral libel hearing witness Luis Froes
« on: November 14, 2013, 11:20:04 PM »
McCann v Gonçalo Amaral libel hearing witness Luis Froes

Important Notice
Readers are warned that this court Report is not a verbatim account of events but is merely a summary. 
As the content is sourced via a third party and although checks are made, the forum cannot guarantee
its veracity.  All reports are made in good faith.


Libel trial McCann v Gonçalo Amaral - Day 8 Witness No 2


The testimony as it happened...


(05.11.2013, 2:45pm) Luis Froes is a Partner at Outsider Films Ltd. He was General Manager at Valentim de Carvalho Multimédia between April 2008 and September 2012, in which period the Amaral documentary was produced. His evidence relates to the background in which the documentary was produced.

Please note the following:

•   VCFilmes S.A. is the Company which produced the documentary Maddie: The Truth of the Lie based on the book by Dr Gonçalo Amaral (GA) and directed by Carlos Coelho da Silva.

•   The rights of edition and distribution of this documentary in DVD format were ceded to VC Multimédia S.A., this Company therefore being their representative as regards the exploration or commercialisation of the rights of television broadcast or transmission of this documentary in foreign countries.

•   The reproduction and editing were authorised by Valentim de Carvalho Multimédia to the company Presslivre - Imprensa Livre, S.A., owner of the newspaper Correio da Manhã (CdM) by means of a contract established between both parties, under which terms, the DVDs, their covers and packaging would be produced on account, by order and under the responsibility of Presslivre, to be distributed and commercialised jointly with said newspaper.


The Judge Maria Emília de Avillez Melo e Castro asks the witness if he recalls the details of the distribution contract concerning the DVD.
LF doesn't remember.

The Judge – Who signed the contract?
LF says he did, but he doesn't know about the international contracts.


1) The Defence lawyers.

a) Valentim de Carvalho’s (VC) lawyer, Dr. Henrique Costa Pinto, is the first to question the witness.


VC - Did you take part in the Providência Cautelar (injunction judgement) hearings?
LF - Yes, but I don't remember when I took the stand.

VC refers to the DVD audiovisual adaptation of GA's book which was commercialised at the end of 2009. Was it edited by Valentim de Carvalho?
LF - Yes

VC - Who edited the DVD version which went on sale?
LF - VC Multimédia distributed. I don't know who edited.



« Last Edit: July 10, 2014, 09:53:10 PM by Admin »
A malicious prosecution for a crime which never existed. John Lamberton exposes malfeasance by public officials.
Check out my website >   http://johnlamberton.webs.com/index.htm?no_redirect=true     The truth never changes with the passage of time.

Online John

Re: McCann v Gonçalo Amaral libel hearing witness Luis Froes
« Reply #1 on: November 14, 2013, 11:22:29 PM »
VC - I'm talking of the copies of the DVD.
LF - VC Multimédia edited them.

VC - Wasn't the Correio da Manhã in charge of them?
LF – They had to be distributed.

VC - Who commercialised them?
LF - For me, commercialising or distributing is the same thing. The unique contract that existed was through the CdM.

The Court Clerk is asked to show the contract to the witness.

VC - The edition was made by the CdM.
LF - It was the CdM who sold the DVD to the public.

VC - Did VC commercialise the DVD?
LF says that for him "editing" is "editing" (montar)

(Note: the Portuguese "editar" that has been translated "edit" means establish the reproduction, publication and diffusion of a work. The Portuguese, as other languages, uses "montar" for "editing" a film).

VC - Who created the cover, the packaging?
LF says it was VC Multimédia .

VC - Then you've not looked at the contract? Do you have an issue with Valentim de Carvalho? In Court?
LF says he has.

The Judge – Are you the executing or the executed one?

LF says the action is against VC.
LF says that there is a problem of definition: VC produced a documentary, and then looked for the best way to distribute it and found CdM.

VC - Who created the cover and the packaging? Who was responsible for this?
LF says he doesn't remember. Normally the producer would do that, but in this case it might have not happened this way.

VC - What about the silver seals with the registration number?
LF doesn't know.

VC - Do you know how many copies were made?
LF says he knows.

VC - Do you know how many copies were destroyed?
LF says that all copies left over were destroyed.

VC - Was there a new edition of the DVD?
LF thinks "no".
A malicious prosecution for a crime which never existed. John Lamberton exposes malfeasance by public officials.
Check out my website >   http://johnlamberton.webs.com/index.htm?no_redirect=true     The truth never changes with the passage of time.

Online John

Re: McCann v Gonçalo Amaral libel hearing witness Luis Froes
« Reply #2 on: November 14, 2013, 11:23:00 PM »
VC – The documentary appeared with subtitles on the Internet.
LF says that everything, all sorts of things appear on the Web.

VC – But with subtitles?
LF doesn't remember.

VC makes a request to suspend this witness' testimony without prejudicing the continuity of the trial, because the witness requires to study the documents before being questioned further. Only Dra Duarte objects. The Judge tells the witness that he must return to give further evidence on the 27th November at 9:30 am.

VC requests that the examination of the witness continues but on another subject.

VC - Don't you remember seeing that documentary on the Web?
LF says he already stated in Court in January 2010 that he didn't.

VC - Do you think it could be that documentary?
LF says that there is no control over the release of films on the Internet.

VC - Did VC Multimédia already have the film subtitled? 
LF answers "no".

VC - Did VC Multimédia use a system to prevent pirating on the Internet?
LF thinks they don't. He adds it's not rare to see a subtitled series on the Internet before they're broadcast on TV.

VC's next question relates to the Providência Cautelar or Injunction but the Judge objects on the basis that it is not relevant, the main action being the present hearing.

VC now alludes to the watermark, the documentary having been sold on the international market.
VC - Did the international sales concern TV channels or the DVD market? Was there edition and sale of DVDs in foreign countries?
LF says he doesn't remember.

VC - Who bought the documentary?
LF says that various TV channels bought it.

VC - Was the DVD protected by a watermark?
LF says it was normal that it was.

VC answers a question by the Judge about the watermark and explains that the original documentary is supposed to have a bandwidth (a signal processing).


b) Gonçalo Amaral's lawyer, Dr. Santos de Oliveira.

SO - As General Director, you had to have knowledge concerning the distribution of the DVD.
LF - Yes.

SO - Weren't you supposed also to know how many copies were distributed?
LF says he doesn't remember.
A malicious prosecution for a crime which never existed. John Lamberton exposes malfeasance by public officials.
Check out my website >   http://johnlamberton.webs.com/index.htm?no_redirect=true     The truth never changes with the passage of time.

Online John

Re: McCann v Gonçalo Amaral libel hearing witness Luis Froes
« Reply #3 on: November 14, 2013, 11:24:35 PM »
SO - You knew how the DVD was created; shouldn't you also know what kind of protection was applied to the copies?
LF says he didn't have to know that.

SO - Could some alteration be made without your knowing about it?
LF says "no".

SO - Did you know whether there was protection against pirate copying?
LF says that practically there's always a way to bypass any protection.


2) The Plaintiffs' lawyer, Dra Isabel Duarte.

ID - Where was the watermark?
LF says it was in the DVDs sold in foreign countries.

ID - Which countries?
LF says he doesn't know, since he didn't sell them, he doesn't remember. He adds that the only entity that commercialised the DVD was the CdM.


The Judge asks if the unsold DVDs were destroyed.
LF says "yes", all those which weren't sold were destroyed.

The Judge asks the witness how he knows that.
LF - I was told so.

The Judge – Who told you?
LF - The CdM.

The Judge - Is this a normal procedure?
LF - It is.

The Judge - When there's no further expectation of selling additional copies, then, before destroying them, do they let you know that they are about to destroy them?
LF - Yes, the CdM announced it beforehand.


Evidence ends.


Note

This witness previously took the stand in the Providência Cautelar (Temporary Injunction) hearings.

Civil Court decision in the Injunction
http://www.mccannfiles.com/id339.html



Important Notice
Readers are warned that this court Report is not a verbatim account of events but is merely a summary. 
As the content is sourced via a third party and although checks are made, the forum cannot guarantee
its veracity.  All reports are made in good faith.
« Last Edit: July 10, 2014, 09:54:11 PM by Admin »
A malicious prosecution for a crime which never existed. John Lamberton exposes malfeasance by public officials.
Check out my website >   http://johnlamberton.webs.com/index.htm?no_redirect=true     The truth never changes with the passage of time.

Redblossom

  • Guest
Re: McCann v Gonçalo Amaral libel hearing witness Luis Froes
« Reply #4 on: November 15, 2013, 02:34:10 PM »
Many thanks to Anne and John for this
 8((()*/


Online Eleanor

Re: McCann v Gonçalo Amaral libel hearing witness Luis Froes
« Reply #5 on: November 16, 2013, 02:44:08 PM »

Not looking good, is it.  No one knows nothing.  Pass the buck.

Online John

Re: McCann v Gonçalo Amaral libel hearing witness Luis Froes
« Reply #6 on: December 03, 2013, 10:19:53 AM »
Day 10 of the trial sees Luis Froes return to complete his evidence...

Libel trial McCann v Gonçalo Amaral - Day 10


(27.11.2013, 10.00am)

Dra Isabel Duarte, the McCanns' lawyer, is today substituted by her assistant, Dr Ricardo Afonso.
The Judge seeks further confirmation from Gonçalo Amaral's lawyer that they no longer wish to call Dr Paulo Sargento to the stand
Defence lawyers who were previously ordered to provide financial documents to the Court seek and receive a 10 day extension.

Witness Luis Froes is recalled today to give further evidence. He previously testified on the 5th November having been called by lawyer Dr. Henrique Costa Pinto acting on behalf of Valentim de CarvalhoFilmes and VC Multimedia.  His return to Court today was ordered by the Judge following his failure to provide qualified responses to certain questions on the previous occasion.

Dr. Henrique Costa Pinto, is the only lawyer to question the witness.


VC - refers to some invoices which the Clerk to the Court presents to LF, and asks to what they refer.
LF reads and says he is aware of these documents.

VC - What is the first document about?
LF presumes that it is about the cost of the seals.

VC - Is it an invoice?
LF says the amount is €75,000. He adds that the seals guarantee the authenticity of the product.

VC - Is the function of the seals to authenticate the DVDs?
LF - It is. The witness thinks that the contract indicated that VC Multimedia were responsible for the cost of the seals.

VC adds that VC Multimedia had to prove that it had the rights.

LF reads the second document.

VC – Getting back on the first document.
LF – VC Multimedia charged Presslivre - Imprensa Livre, S.A. (owner of the newspaper Correio da Manhã) with the cost of the seals.

VC – About the second document?
LF says it is an invoice for €xxxxxx to Presslivre.

VC – And about the third document?
LF – It concerns the distributed copies.

VC – Do you remember having given authorisation to destroy the unsold copies?
LF says he does vaguely remember they were destroyed.

VC – Is it usual practice when products cease to be bought?
LF says it is.

VC – There is a number that doesn't correspond to the number of surplus copies. It seems the invoice concerns fewer copies than there actually were. Subtracting to the number of distributed copies for sale the number of unsold (destroyed) copies gives a slight difference in relation to the invoice.

LF doesn't explain this difference.

VC – Apart from this edition, was there a second edition in Portugal or in other foreign countries?
LF says that in this case he would have had to authorise it, which he never did.

VC – You don't remember.
LF says he doesn't.

Evidence ends.

After a break, the Plaintiffs lawyer Dr Ricardo Afonso plays a recording of the original TV broadcast of the documentary (with publicity etc.) to the Court on a small screen. After a few technical problems, he decides to substitute the original broadcast with the DVD.

The Judge takes some notes.

It is scheduled that two video presentations are also played to the Court, but Dr Ricardo Afonso desists of one (an interview made on 16th May 2009) and plays the second one, dated 27th May 2009 (SIC, Querida Julia program).

The Judge takes some notes of Querida Julia's round table.

Taking part are Gonçalo Amaral, Paulo Sargento and, on the phone from Brussels, Duarte Levy.
The video starts with mention of GA's condemnation related to his involvement in the Joana Cipriano case. GA states that the new suspect is a British man (whose name is never disclosed, but everybody will understand who he is, a dying man) accused of assaulting teenagers  and with convictions in the UK.  GA criticises the PJ for having let the private detective group Metodo 3 undertake the investigation of this man and his possible involvement in the disappearance of Madeleine McCann. Duarte Levy states that the suspect is in Germany and that he was informed that this man (married to a German woman) wasn't properly investigated in Germany and that detectives weren't even allowed into his hospital room.  The discussion expands to cover the moral aspect of taking advantage of someone who is seriously ill.  Duarte Levy says that the documentary, with English subtitles, made it possible for those with little or no understanding of the Maddie case to appreciate in less than an hour what was at stake. Paulo Sargento underlines that little is known about what really happened between 5.30pm and 8.30pm and adds that the British investigators' paedophile hypothesis is geographically implausible. Gonçalo Amaral concludes saying that trusting in justice is a must (referring to his condemnation in the Joana Case).

The gathering of evidence has concluded.
The Judge proposes that the last session with the allegations and  statements from the parties be fixed for the 18 December but changes this to 7 January 2014 which is the first date when all parties will be available.

End of session.
A malicious prosecution for a crime which never existed. John Lamberton exposes malfeasance by public officials.
Check out my website >   http://johnlamberton.webs.com/index.htm?no_redirect=true     The truth never changes with the passage of time.

Offline Sherlock Holmes

Re: McCann v Gonçalo Amaral libel hearing witness Luis Froes
« Reply #7 on: December 10, 2013, 04:57:15 AM »
Day 10 of the trial sees Luis Froes return to complete his evidence...

Libel trial McCann v Gonçalo Amaral - Day 10


(27.11.2013, 10.00am)

Dra Isabel Duarte, the McCanns' lawyer, is today substituted by her assistant, Dr Ricardo Afonso.
The Judge seeks further confirmation from Gonçalo Amaral's lawyer that they no longer wish to call Dr Paulo Sargento to the stand
Defence lawyers who were previously ordered to provide financial documents to the Court seek and receive a 10 day extension.

Witness Luis Froes is recalled today to give further evidence. He previously testified on the 5th November having been called by lawyer Dr. Henrique Costa Pinto acting on behalf of Valentim de CarvalhoFilmes and VC Multimedia.  His return to Court today was ordered by the Judge following his failure to provide qualified responses to certain questions on the previous occasion.

Dr. Henrique Costa Pinto, is the only lawyer to question the witness.


VC - refers to some invoices which the Clerk to the Court presents to LF, and asks to what they refer.
LF reads and says he is aware of these documents.

VC - What is the first document about?
LF presumes that it is about the cost of the seals.

VC - Is it an invoice?
LF says the amount is €75,000. He adds that the seals guarantee the authenticity of the product.

VC - Is the function of the seals to authenticate the DVDs?
LF - It is. The witness thinks that the contract indicated that VC Multimedia were responsible for the cost of the seals.

VC adds that VC Multimedia had to prove that it had the rights.

LF reads the second document.

VC – Getting back on the first document.
LF – VC Multimedia charged Presslivre - Imprensa Livre, S.A. (owner of the newspaper Correio da Manhã) with the cost of the seals.

VC – About the second document?
LF says it is an invoice for €xxxxxx to Presslivre.

VC – And about the third document?
LF – It concerns the distributed copies.

VC – Do you remember having given authorisation to destroy the unsold copies?
LF says he does vaguely remember they were destroyed.

VC – Is it usual practice when products cease to be bought?
LF says it is.

VC – There is a number that doesn't correspond to the number of surplus copies. It seems the invoice concerns fewer copies than there actually were. Subtracting to the number of distributed copies for sale the number of unsold (destroyed) copies gives a slight difference in relation to the invoice.

LF doesn't explain this difference.

VC – Apart from this edition, was there a second edition in Portugal or in other foreign countries?
LF says that in this case he would have had to authorise it, which he never did.

VC – You don't remember.
LF says he doesn't.

Evidence ends.

After a break, the Plaintiffs lawyer Dr Ricardo Afonso plays a recording of the original TV broadcast of the documentary (with publicity etc.) to the Court on a small screen. After a few technical problems, he decides to substitute the original broadcast with the DVD.

The Judge takes some notes.

It is scheduled that two video presentations are also played to the Court, but Dr Ricardo Afonso desists of one (an interview made on 16th May 2009) and plays the second one, dated 27th May 2009 (SIC, Querida Julia program).

The Judge takes some notes of Querida Julia's round table.

Taking part are Gonçalo Amaral, Paulo Sargento and, on the phone from Brussels, Duarte Levy.
The video starts with mention of GA's condemnation related to his involvement in the Joana Cipriano case. GA states that the new suspect is a British man (whose name is never disclosed, but everybody will understand who he is, a dying man) accused of assaulting teenagers  and with convictions in the UK.  GA criticises the PJ for having let the private detective group Metodo 3 undertake the investigation of this man and his possible involvement in the disappearance of Madeleine McCann. Duarte Levy states that the suspect is in Germany and that he was informed that this man (married to a German woman) wasn't properly investigated in Germany and that detectives weren't even allowed into his hospital room.  The discussion expands to cover the moral aspect of taking advantage of someone who is seriously ill.  Duarte Levy says that the documentary, with English subtitles, made it possible for those with little or no understanding of the Maddie case to appreciate in less than an hour what was at stake. Paulo Sargento underlines that little is known about what really happened between 5.30pm and 8.30pm and adds that the British investigators' paedophile hypothesis is geographically implausible. Gonçalo Amaral concludes saying that trusting in justice is a must (referring to his condemnation in the Joana Case).

The gathering of evidence has concluded.
The Judge proposes that the last session with the allegations and  statements from the parties be fixed for the 18 December but changes this to 7 January 2014 which is the first date when all parties will be available.

End of session.



What does this mean?
« Last Edit: December 13, 2013, 07:18:27 AM by Sherlock Holmes »

AnneGuedes

  • Guest
Re: McCann v Gonçalo Amaral libel hearing witness Luis Froes
« Reply #8 on: December 10, 2013, 10:43:32 PM »
You have to consider the state of the roads, many being narrow and not allowing to drive faster than 50 km/h.

Redblossom

  • Guest
Re: McCann v Gonçalo Amaral libel hearing witness Luis Froes
« Reply #9 on: December 11, 2013, 01:04:24 PM »
I thought he was referring to Edgar and Cowley/Hewlett....I got the impression he had been ruled out by the PJ....we are not privy to those files, perhaps they ascertained he was not in the area that night..

AnneGuedes

  • Guest
Re: McCann v Gonçalo Amaral libel hearing witness Luis Froes
« Reply #10 on: December 11, 2013, 05:15:27 PM »
I thought he was referring to Edgar and Cowley/Hewlett....I got the impression he had been ruled out by the PJ....we are not privy to those files, perhaps they ascertained he was not in the area that night..
Was Hewlett among the 130 paedophiles on the list released by the British to the Portuguese?
If so, he was checked, if not, why would he be ?
GA is referring clearly to Hewlett as a paedophile suspect of Edgar/Cowley.

Redblossom

  • Guest
Re: McCann v Gonçalo Amaral libel hearing witness Luis Froes
« Reply #11 on: December 11, 2013, 08:00:08 PM »
Was Hewlett among the 130 paedophiles on the list released by the British to the Portuguese?
If so, he was checked, if not, why would he be ?
GA is referring clearly to Hewlett as a paedophile suspect of Edgar/Cowley.

I dont know, I got the impression he was checked...in any case...he never in his distant to then past had an MO for toddlers!

AnneGuedes

  • Guest
Re: McCann v Gonçalo Amaral libel hearing witness Luis Froes
« Reply #12 on: December 11, 2013, 09:14:12 PM »
I dont know, I got the impression he was checked...in any case...he never in his distant to then past had an MO for toddlers!
Yes. If he had been in PDL by an implausible chance and without any motive (I understand the whole family lived in the van, so where would they have been left by a cold night ?), the worst he could have done was hitting Madeleine invisible in the darkness of the street.
Somebody laughs in the background when Moita Flores says all suspects are dead..

Redblossom

  • Guest
Re: McCann v Gonçalo Amaral libel hearing witness Luis Froes
« Reply #13 on: December 11, 2013, 11:01:36 PM »
Yes. If he had been in PDL by an implausible chance and without any motive (I understand the whole family lived in the van, so where would they have been left by a cold night ?), the worst he could have done was hitting Madeleine invisible in the darkness of the street.
Somebody laughs in the background when Moita Flores says all suspects are dead..

IMO Hewlett was a patsy...and a bad choice....nothing rang true much...it was all the sun said, the news of the world  said...in other words....rubbish...nothing tenable to link him....bit like tractor man and many others over the years...laughable.......an investigation hampered and tampered by the tabloid and those behind the stories whichever immoral wretches  they were

AnneGuedes

  • Guest
Re: McCann v Gonçalo Amaral libel hearing witness Luis Froes
« Reply #14 on: December 12, 2013, 12:10:00 AM »
IMO Hewlett was a patsy...and a bad choice....nothing rang true much...it was all the sun said, the news of the world  said...in other words....rubbish...nothing tenable to link him....bit like tractor man and many others over the years...laughable.......an investigation hampered and tampered by the tabloid and those behind the stories whichever immoral wretches  they were
The best patsy has always been a dead one. In our media dependent societies it has become a caricature.