Gonçalo Amaral was no longer working for the PJ when he wrote his book, he had already retired. Other ex-policemen have written books about cases, why can't he? He also wrote the book not only to defend his honour but that of the PJ and judicial system which had been maligned systematically in the British press.
If the British press can bring out retired police officers and other so-called experts to analyse the case, I don't see why someone who was actually involved in it can't give his view, especially when his views are based on the police files.
That's true, Montclair, that he was no longer working for the PJ when he wrote the book. But as I noted in a later post - and others have noted as well - the contents of the book are brought largely from files and notes compiled during the time he was on the case. By creating this continuum of information of ideas, he himself blurs the line between his police work and his right - as I also noted in a later post - to produce a book.
As for defending aspects of the Portuguese system from attack, it is perfectly reasonable, even honourable that someone should wish to do this. Some of the attacks on the Portuguese handling of the case are just plain xenophobic. (Some are, some not - we have to think carefully on these matters). But given Mr Amaral's involvement in other cases, and aspects of his own record, you have to ask yourself if he was the best person for that job. Mr Amaral is presenting himself here as a self-appointed ambassador for Portuguese justice - and I'm not sure that that has been an entirely clever move.
This thread relates to the idea of Mr Amaral being 'fair game' given the content of his book. The tile of that book alone is a provocation, the 'Truth' part being the claim that Dr Amaral has the monopoly on truth, and the 'Lie' reference being intensely accusatorial in meaning and tone.
Would Mr Amaral have imagined, upon publishing such a work, that he would
not be inviting scrutiny and criticism from many quarters? Wasn't that perhaps one of his aims?