From page 44 of the original judgement in 2015....
http://miscarriageofjustice.co/index.php?topic=6307.0The book conveys the idea that the truth of the investigation is merely formal, while the truth of the author (that would have been met at the end of the line of inquiry that had been followed up to his removal from the case) is the material truth - This book still has a purpose greater. The contribute to the discovery of material truth and the realisation of justice ( ... ) (No. 23) .
There is no doubt that is the proper defendant who calls his condition of former coordinator of the criminal investigation and that through this statute the book, the interview and the documentary distinguish themselves - by qualifying – from the opinion of television commentators, writers or other who gloss about the subject.
But, at least in our view, that same status cannot but mark the limits of the defendant's freedom of expression when compared to the one detained by others. Having been in charge of that investigation as a member of the Judicial Police, the defendant Goncalo Amaral, although retired on 1st July 2008, did not enjoy, on the following July 24, in respect of the results of the criminal investigation released on the 21st of the same month and year, a large and full freedom of expression. This freedom was conditioned by the functions he had, functions that imposed him special duties that traverse the status of retirement, including the duty of reserve.
In this concrete situation, despite the personal reasons that the defendant invokes in the introductory note of the book, the freedom of expression should cede through the imperative of that reserve. It was not what happened and the truth is that on 24 July 2008, barely three days after the release of the the dispatch shelving the investigation for lack of proof, the book was launched, sold with the newspaper's edition and the interview was published.
The time-line displays well the intention to call for the contradictory, in the public domain, the shelving of the investigation, comparing it with the thesis of the previous line of investigation, told as the true one by a person who had been responsible for the same investigation.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
