The Telecinco Affair

[G-Unit]

From page 44 of the original judgement in 2015....http://miscarriageofjustice.co/index.php?topic=6307.0

The 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.


-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Ah yes. The first judge's claim that Amaral's freedom of expression was limited by his employment, even in retirement. The Appeal Court dismissed her argument;

In effect, and independently of the reasons invoked by the appellant for the publication, it is hardly understandable that an employee, even more a retired one, would have to keep said duties of secrecy and reserve, thus being limited in the exercise of his right to an opinion, concerning the interpretation of facts that were already made public by the judiciary authority, and widely debated (in fact, largely by initiative of the intervenients themselves) in the national and international media.
http://miscarriageofjustice.co/index.php?topic=7153.0

[The General]

Ah yes. The first judge's claim that Amaral's freedom of expression was limited by his employment, even in retirement. The Appeal Court dismissed her argument;

In effect, and independently of the reasons invoked by the appellant for the publication, it is hardly understandable that an employee, even more a retired one, would have to keep said duties of secrecy and reserve, thus being limited in the exercise of his right to an opinion, concerning the interpretation of facts that were already made public by the judiciary authority, and widely debated (in fact, largely by initiative of the intervenients themselves) in the national and international media.
http://miscarriageofjustice.co/index.php?topic=7153.0

Hear, hear.

[Vertigo Swirl]

Ah yes. The first judge's claim that Amaral's freedom of expression was limited by his employment, even in retirement. The Appeal Court dismissed her argument;

In effect, and independently of the reasons invoked by the appellant for the publication, it is hardly understandable that an employee, even more a retired one, would have to keep said duties of secrecy and reserve, thus being limited in the exercise of his right to an opinion, concerning the interpretation of facts that were already made public by the judiciary authority, and widely debated (in fact, largely by initiative of the intervenients themselves) in the national and international media.
http://miscarriageofjustice.co/index.php?topic=7153.0

and the cite from the judge confirming no lies or defamation in the book?

[Mr Gray]

and the cite from the judge confirming no lies or defamation in the book?

there was a time when those posting opinion as fact without a cite would have the post removed. Gunits claim re lies and defanmation being rebufffed in the SC judgement is a total untruth. in the present climate her post has been allowed to stand but IMO...it speaks volumes re her credibility.

[G-Unit]

and the cite from the judge confirming no lies or defamation in the book?

It was never claimed in court that there were lies or defamation in the book so no judge needed to consider those matters. It was decided that Amaral broke no laws and was just as entitled to express his opinion as the claimants were.

[Mr Gray]

It was never claimed in court that there were lies or defamation in the book so no judge needed to consider those matters. It was decided that Amaral broke no laws and was just as entitled to express his opinion as the claimants were.

you claimed..
The Truth of the Lie went to the highest court in Portugal and wasn't found to contain lies or defamation. Anyone thinking it's going to be retried is deluding themselves.

you are now claiming that the judge didnt consider lies or defamation yet your initial claim was the judge found no lies ir defamation....you are contradicting yourself.

you are also deluded if you think the trial was not at least in part a libel trial...what do you thing damage to reputation is if its not defamation

[Admin]

Members are reminded to engage in the debate and refrain from name calling.

Admin

[Mr Gray]

When I get a cite saying that the book contained 'lies and defamation'. That is opinion, not fact.

You introduced the word lies.
in his book amarla claims eddie found a body under a slab of concrete in Jersey...not true. Amaral aso claimed the dogs help solve 200 cases...not true. So was amaral lying or was he just poorly informed and didnt bother to check his facts...is he therefore a national disgrace as you described the telegraph.
as regards defamation. in the documentaery amaral said in the next 50 mims he would prove maddie died in the apartment and her death was covered up...what is that if its not defamatory

[The General]

in the documentaery amaral said in the next 50 mims he would prove maddie died in the apartment and her death was covered up...what is that if its not defamatory

Shut up. There's people who state they've discovered Bigfoot every day.
You can claim whatever the heck you like within the bounds of local libel laws if someone's willing to pay for it be produced. So what?

[The General]

Members are reminded to engage in the debate and refrain from name calling.

Admin

Just go to the root cause with a DM. No need to warn all us law abiding members.

[Lace]

Shut up. There's people who state they've discovered Bigfoot every day.
You can claim whatever the heck you like within the bounds of local libel laws if someone's willing to pay for it be produced. So what?

I don't think you can compare someone claiming they discovered Bigfoot,  something that has not been proven to exist,  with Madeleine who definitely existed.

Amaral said he could prove Madeleine died in 5a,   he couldn't prove that at all.

[The General]

I don't think you can compare someone claiming they discovered Bigfoot,  something that has not been proven to exist,  with Madeleine who definitely existed.

Amaral said he could prove Madeleine died in 5a,   he couldn't prove that at all.

Not the point. He has a right to say aliens beamed her up and he can prove it. Two very separate concepts.

[Lace]

Not the point. He has a right to say aliens beamed her up and he can prove it. Two very separate concepts.

So,  if someone says they can prove that Bigfoot exists,   is this person libelling anyone by saying this no.

If someone says I can prove Madeleine died in 5a,  is this person libelling anyone?  Yes,  as the McCann's say Madeleine was abducted.   Amaral is saying they are lying.

If someone says Aliens took Madeleine although sounding like a lunatic is this person libelling anyone,  no as the McCann's say Madeleine was abducted.

You can't compare someone saying Bigfoot exists with Madeleine died in 5a.

[jassi]

So,  if someone says they can prove that Bigfoot exists,   is this person libelling anyone by saying this no.

If someone says I can prove Madeleine died in 5a,  is this person libelling anyone?  Yes,  as the McCann's say Madeleine was abducted.   Amaral is saying they are lying.

If someone says Aliens took Madeleine although sounding like a lunatic is this person libelling anyone,  no as the McCann's say Madeleine was abducted.

You can't compare someone saying Bigfoot exists with Madeleine died in 5a.

Mistaken, rather than lying - IMO

[G-Unit]

there was a time when those posting opinion as fact without a cite would have the post removed. Gunits claim re lies and defanmation being rebufffed in the SC judgement is a total untruth. in the present climate her post has been allowed to stand but IMO...it speaks volumes re her credibility.

Not everyone has opinions posted as fact removed;

snip/
One book contained untruths and defamation which were challenged in court and the final result on that is yet to be delivered.
http://miscarriageofjustice.co/index.php?topic=11196.msg571851#msg571851