So what's next in the libel trial saga?

[ferryman]

And http://www.gerrymccannsblogs.co.uk/Ricardo_Paiva_08_10_2013.htm

Ah!

Ricardo Paivia.

Just about the only Amaral-witness in the trial to display a spark of theMcCannsdunit spunk ...

[faithlilly]

You've completely missed the point Faith  -  which was that no-one reading his book would have the slightest clue from it's content that Amaral had never met or spoken to Kate McCan in his life - and had only briefly met Gerry once.     In fact quite the opposite impression is given to his readers - and deliberately so IMO.

IMO that was dishonest.

I haven't missed the point Benice and unless Amaral actually said he had met Kate I really don't the problem.

If you read Anthony Summers book you would also get the impression that he had spoken to many of the witnesses even though we know most of his information was taken from their police statements.

[Carana]

I haven't missed the point Benice and unless Amaral actually said he had met Kate I really don't the problem.

If you read Anthony Summers book you would also get the impression that he had spoken to many of the witnesses even though we know most of his information was taken from their police statements.

Q: What relationship do you have with the McCann couple?

I was the head of the department investigating the case within the PJ in Portimao. I was responsible for organising the work of the investigation and ensuring myself of following the direction of the investigation, and therefore I was with the couple once or twice as well as with all the witnesses and with inspectors working on the case. I do not want to discuss publicly with the McCanns, they have lost a daughter. Neither I, nor the parents are of interest, the only victim here is the little girl.

http://www.hola.com/actualidad/20080911656/entrevista/goncalo/amaral/1/

Translation found on: http://www.websleuths.com/forums/showthread.php?53176-Portuguese-Press-%28Translations%29-No-Discussion/page18&s=b7f6f0e6dcc1578e4054110d3c91eb05

[Carana]

Someone on here or on another thread said that Amaral's book was based on the facts in the archiving report. I can't find who said it (was it you, Faith?), nor the thread in question.

The PJ's final report was the basis of the prosecutor's archival report. But Amaral stated that he hadn't had time to read it. So how could the book have been based on it?

PR: A very precise, very direct question for Dr Gonçalo Amaral. Do you think that the PJ’s final report, which was widely reported by the media and even was published online by Expresso newspaper. Do you think that the report faithfully reflects, does it make an accurate balance of the investigation?

GA: Well before anything else, I want to thank you for the work that you have done since that time, the manner how you have followed the investigation and the way that you have been solidary with truth and justice.

PR: That is my obligation as a journalist.

GA: You may not have done more than your obligation but I want to thank you and to thank all the journalists. Concerning that report, I have to be sincere, I haven’t read it yet. I haven’t had time to read it but if it is a report that led to the archiving, it cannot be faithful towards what exists in the process, so it’s an imposition, I would not like to comment much further on that, but it’s the position of police professionals who took it, that decision to write that report that was being very well written…

JP: Weren’t you curious to read that report? That final report from the PJ?

GA: No, no. I haven’t had time, either. I haven’t had any time at all to read it. This has been a bumpy ride…



Source, pending finding a live link:

"The little girl died in that apartment" - Gonçalo Amaral on TVI

This is the transcript of an interview with Gonçalo Amaral, Paulo Reis and Duarte Levy, by Júlia Pinheiro, on 'As Tardes da Júlia', TVI, broadcast live on or around the 28th of July 2008.

[Alice Purjorick]

On the contrary.  It is highly relevant.

Ex-parte judgments are used by all judicial systems (including in the UK) and the quality of justice they produce is frequently questionable.

At least in the UK, though, ex-parte judgments are only ever used in situations of dire emergency where matters of life or death (or something approaching as serious) are at stake.

The ex-parte judgment that overturned the injunction on Amaral's book was poorly considered and bad law, precisely because it so grievously misjudged the content of the book, as the subsequent libel trial has made plain.

 

Really?
Not to forget that the original injunction which prevented publication of "that book" was ex-parte.
So basically the argument is that the Portuguese judiciary are stupid and bent and don't know A from a bulls foot?
The full SP on the "libel" trial remains to be published and that which has been published has been translated by those whose abilities your compadres seek to trash with the suggestion the translations are unreliable in parts. A bit like the jolly old curates egg in fact.

[Alice Purjorick]

Someone on here or on another thread said that Amaral's book was based on the facts in the archiving report. I can't find who said it (was it you, Faith?), nor the thread in question.

The PJ's final report was the basis of the prosecutor's archival report. But Amaral stated that he hadn't had time to read it. So how could the book have been based on it?

PR: A very precise, very direct question for Dr Gonçalo Amaral. Do you think that the PJ’s final report, which was widely reported by the media and even was published online by Expresso newspaper. Do you think that the report faithfully reflects, does it make an accurate balance of the investigation?

GA: Well before anything else, I want to thank you for the work that you have done since that time, the manner how you have followed the investigation and the way that you have been solidary with truth and justice.

PR: That is my obligation as a journalist.

GA: You may not have done more than your obligation but I want to thank you and to thank all the journalists. Concerning that report, I have to be sincere, I haven’t read it yet. I haven’t had time to read it but if it is a report that led to the archiving, it cannot be faithful towards what exists in the process, so it’s an imposition, I would not like to comment much further on that, but it’s the position of police professionals who took it, that decision to write that report that was being very well written…

JP: Weren’t you curious to read that report? That final report from the PJ?

GA: No, no. I haven’t had time, either. I haven’t had any time at all to read it. This has been a bumpy ride…



Source, pending finding a live link:

"The little girl died in that apartment" - Gonçalo Amaral on TVI

This is the transcript of an interview with Gonçalo Amaral, Paulo Reis and Duarte Levy, by Júlia Pinheiro, on 'As Tardes da Júlia', TVI, broadcast live on or around the 28th of July 2008.

'twas not faith twas I . My post 20:14 11th Dec 2014 although I did not say quite what you are recalling I said

From the Appeal Court Judgement:

What is certain is that since the start of the investigation there were incongruent and even contradictory situations concerning the witness statements; the telephone records of calls that were made and received on mobile phones that belonged to the couple and to the group of friends that were on holidays with them; the movements of people right after the disappearance of the little girl was noticed, concerning the state in which the bedroom from where the child disappeared from was found (closed window? open window? partially open window?) etc., and the mystery would only become even thicker due to the clues that were left by the already mentioned sniffer dogs.

All of this is reported in detailed manner in the book that is at stake here, reproducing the contents of some of the case files, which also had an effect on the above mentioned final dispatch that was signed by two Public Ministry Magistrates.

In the book, we do not verify any reference to any facts that are not in that dispatch.

Where the author differs from the Prosecutors who have written the dispatch, is in the logical, police-work-related and investigative interpretation that he does of those facts.

But of course it is bolleaux being Portuguese n all that innit  (that's irony you know, like brassy but with iron).

[Carana]

'twas not faith twas I . My post 20:14 11th Dec 2014 although I did not say quite what you are recalling I said

From the Appeal Court Judgement:

What is certain is that since the start of the investigation there were incongruent and even contradictory situations concerning the witness statements; the telephone records of calls that were made and received on mobile phones that belonged to the couple and to the group of friends that were on holidays with them; the movements of people right after the disappearance of the little girl was noticed, concerning the state in which the bedroom from where the child disappeared from was found (closed window? open window? partially open window?) etc., and the mystery would only become even thicker due to the clues that were left by the already mentioned sniffer dogs.

All of this is reported in detailed manner in the book that is at stake here, reproducing the contents of some of the case files, which also had an effect on the above mentioned final dispatch that was signed by two Public Ministry Magistrates.

In the book, we do not verify any reference to any facts that are not in that dispatch.

Where the author differs from the Prosecutors who have written the dispatch, is in the logical, police-work-related and investigative interpretation that he does of those facts.

But of course it is bolleaux being Portuguese n all that innit  (that's irony you know, like brassy but with iron).

Thanks, but that wasn't the comment in question. It may have been removed if judged off topic on whichever thread it was on.

[ferryman]

Really?
Not to forget that the original injunction which prevented publication of "that book" was ex-parte.
So basically the argument is that the Portuguese judiciary are stupid and bent and don't know A from a bulls foot?
The full SP on the "libel" trial remains to be published and that which has been published has been translated by those whose abilities your compadres seek to trash with the suggestion the translations are unreliable in parts. A bit like the jolly old curates egg in fact.

What I underline is half-true.

From the Pamalan site about the first judgment allowing the injunction:

This is a translation of the text of the Civil Court ruling that granted the temporary injunction on Goncalo Amaral's book, ‘Maddie – The Truth of the Lie', and the corresponding DVD. It was issued on the 9th of September, 2009. The numbered notes

• are from astro, for clarification purposes only. It should also be recalled that this injunction was granted exclusively based on the evidence that was provided by the Applicants. The Defendants were only allowed to oppose the injunction after it had been granted
  [/b]
  
  There was a right of appeal on behalf of the respondents after the injunction had been granted (denied).
  
  But it does seem as if the proceedings that led to original granting of the injunction did not include representation on behalf of Amaral and the other respondents. 

[Alfred R Jones]

Someone on here or on another thread said that Amaral's book was based on the facts in the archiving report. I can't find who said it (was it you, Faith?), nor the thread in question.

The PJ's final report was the basis of the prosecutor's archival report. But Amaral stated that he hadn't had time to read it. So how could the book have been based on it?

PR: A very precise, very direct question for Dr Gonçalo Amaral. Do you think that the PJ’s final report, which was widely reported by the media and even was published online by Expresso newspaper. Do you think that the report faithfully reflects, does it make an accurate balance of the investigation?

GA: Well before anything else, I want to thank you for the work that you have done since that time, the manner how you have followed the investigation and the way that you have been solidary with truth and justice.

PR: That is my obligation as a journalist.

GA: You may not have done more than your obligation but I want to thank you and to thank all the journalists. Concerning that report, I have to be sincere, I haven’t read it yet. I haven’t had time to read it but if it is a report that led to the archiving, it cannot be faithful towards what exists in the process, so it’s an imposition, I would not like to comment much further on that, but it’s the position of police professionals who took it, that decision to write that report that was being very well written…

JP: Weren’t you curious to read that report? That final report from the PJ?

GA: No, no. I haven’t had time, either. I haven’t had any time at all to read it. This has been a bumpy ride…



Source, pending finding a live link:

"The little girl died in that apartment" - Gonçalo Amaral on TVI

This is the transcript of an interview with Gonçalo Amaral, Paulo Reis and Duarte Levy, by Júlia Pinheiro, on 'As Tardes da Júlia', TVI, broadcast live on or around the 28th of July 2008.

Reply 519 t'was dear old Alas who had this to say:

As I recall the appeal court upheld it [that book] was based on the facts in the archiving report with Dr Amaral forming his own valid conclusion from those facts. So how does the "made it all up" bit work then?

[Alice Purjorick]

Another one of Alf's great revelations.
I had already posted 'twas I !
Some people are a bit slow I guess.
PMSL

[Mr Gray]

deleted

[Alfred R Jones]

Another one of Alf's great revelations.
I had already posted 'twas I !
Some people are a bit slow I guess.
PMSL

Carana wrote this:

Someone on here or on another thread said that Amaral's book was based on the facts in the archiving report. I can't find who said it (was it you, Faith?), nor the thread in question.

You wrote this:

As I recall the appeal court upheld it [that book] was based on the facts in the archiving report with Dr Amaral forming his own valid conclusion from those facts. So how does the "made it all up" bit work then?

You claim there is a difference between what you said and what she said you said.  So what is the difference?

[Alice Purjorick]

Carana wrote this:

You wrote this:

You claim there is a difference between what you said and what she said you said.  So what is the difference?

Merciful heavens you have taken me off ignore. Does this mean we are friends again? You know, Alf, if I thought you weren't my friend, I just don't think I could bear it.

In answer to your question ; There is a subtle difference. Work it out for yourself.

[Alfred R Jones]

Merciful heavens you have taken me off ignore. Does this mean we are friends again? You know, Alf, if I thought you weren't my friend, I just don't think I could bear it.

In answer to your question ; There is a subtle difference. Work it out for yourself.

so subtle it's impossible to see with the naked eye.

[Alice Purjorick]

so subtle it's impossible to see with the naked eye.

That is not really my concern old stick.