Libel trial day 14 - Statement of facts proved/not proved issued to lawyers.

[Carana]

No idea, Anna.

Another point that mystifies me.


From the initial injunction ruling:
"... Concerning the fifth witness, although her knowledge of the facts that she was questioned about comes from a set of investigative tasks that tend to sustain the allegation that is made in this injunction, what is certain is that, together with the documents that have been appended to the process, it was possible to establish that the book in question has already been subject to a Spanish edition in May 2009, a French one in June 2009, a German one (also for the Swiss and Austrian markets) in June 2009, then an Italian and a Dutch one, and Defendant ‘Guerra e Paz’ has also launched an edition in Brazil [8].

Note [8] added by Astro for clarification: The Brazilian edition does not exist, as was later clarified during a hearing on the 13th of January 2010.

http://www.gerrymccannsblogs.co.uk/court_docs.htm#court

Yet...

5. The book was sold in Brazil by defendant “Guerra e Paz, Editores, S.A.”?

Not proved.


Assuming the reports are accurate, what does this actually mean?

1. That G & P hadn't launched their own edition in Brazil?

2.  That they hadn't sold the rights to another publishing house to do so?

3. That any copies were sold directly by online book stores (e.g., Amazon.br) and that therefore any revenue from Brazil was already accounted for in the number of sales?

4. That book shops ordered stock to be physically shipped over to Brazil and that therefore any revenue from Brazil was already accounted for in the number of sales?

5. That no copies of the book were ever sold in Brazil?

[Carana]

It seems that one of the "quesitos" (questions on the list of 37) was with regard to the amount Gonçalo Amaral had earned from the book and the DVD. From the answer, he has earned about one third of what the McCanns claimed he earned.

That's why I'm asking if the higher amounts corresponded to the global revenue of all defendants, as opposed to just Amaral's royalties.

[Carana]

Random selection of four proven points courtesy Astro:

17. Sean and Amelie MacCann will soon become aware of the conclusions that are mentioned in J), because they will go to school?
 

It is proved that Sean and Amelie started school in August of 2010 and have not learned about Mr Amaral's thesis yet.
 

On this point... Kate testified in court that Sean had asked her if it was true that Amaral had said that they had hidden Madeleine. Was that not taken into account?

[DCI]

It seems that one of the "quesitos" (questions on the list of 37) was with regard to the amount Gonçalo Amaral had earned from the book and the DVD. From the answer, he has earned about one third of what the McCanns claimed he earned.

Amarals earnings 2008/2009 After tax

22.500.00

22.500.00

22.500.00

22.500.00

6.750.00

3.375.00

6.750.00

18.000.00

14.850.00

12.301.97

187.036.20

4.837.50

---------------
343.900.67 TOTAL

[Alice Purjorick]

On this point... Kate testified in court that Sean had asked her if it was true that Amaral had said that they had hidden Madeleine. Was that not taken into account?

My understanding was that the judge had originally ruled out statements by the defendants and plaintiffs as she thought them unnecessary. Dra Duarte made an appeal which was upheld to allow Drs McCann to speak to the court. The judge however was still at liberty to decide whether or not anything in the statement was relevant and carried weight. The basic comment as I recall was that Sean had heard it on the school bus radio. That could be regarded as hearsay I guess.

[Carana]

Amarals earnings 2008/2009 After tax

22.500.00

22.500.00

22.500.00

22.500.00

6.750.00

3.375.00

6.750.00

18.000.00

14.850.00

12.301.97

187.036.20

4.837.50

---------------
343.900.67 TOTAL

It all seems so vague. Depending on how that's calculated, he gained anywhere between 1/5 to 1/3 of the global revenue cited (book and DVD).

Did he do the documentary for free? Or is any fee included as "DVD sales"?

[Carana]

Amarals earnings 2008/2009 After tax

22.500.00

22.500.00

22.500.00

22.500.00

6.750.00

3.375.00

6.750.00

18.000.00

14.850.00

12.301.97

187.036.20

4.837.50

---------------
343.900.67 TOTAL

Where did you find that, DCI? I think I've come across that before but I can't remember where. Were these all amounts related to the book?

3 – Said book attained 4 editions until the end of July of 2008, 9 editions until the end of August of 2008, and 12 editions until the end of September of 2008;

4 – Each edition was of 10.000 copies;

09-09-2009

http://www.gerrymccannsblogs.co.uk/court_docs.htm


Based on the initial print and 3 reprints, his royalties on the book would appear to be around €2.50 per copy before tax and thereafter may have fluctuated depending on the terms of the contract.

It's not clear whether the book's price refers to the recommended retail price or not.

[Carana]

187.036.20


[/b]

What's this huge amount for? Royalties in arrears? Other associated income?

[Carana]

My understanding was that the judge had originally ruled out statements by the defendants and plaintiffs as she thought them unnecessary. Dra Duarte made an appeal which was upheld to allow Drs McCann to speak to the court. The judge however was still at liberty to decide whether or not anything in the statement was relevant and carried weight. The basic comment as I recall was that Sean had heard it on the school bus radio. That could be regarded as hearsay I guess.

That's possible...

However, a substantial amount of Amaral's book would appear to be based on hearsay (if "we" is meant to mean the PJ as a collective as opposed to himself personally, plus others.)

If Sean heard it on the radio on the bus, then it should be relatively easy to prove if any radio station had reported on the case at a time when he could have heard it (or heard it before he decided to tell his mum, or heard it via others who'd heard it and who had told him a few days previously)... unless it was too late to submit verfiable evidence as, by that stage, it was the equivalent of "emotional impact statements".

[Carana]

  Because he was going to appear in court re perjury charges and no boss worth his salt would risk jeopardising an investigation under those circumstances. So give him an OBE sideways. Simples.

LOL

I've no idea where Montclair got the idea that he was "promoted" to Faro from (aside from Levyspiel)... that's where he was based in the first place at some point around the time of the Cipriano fiasco.

His family was in the Algarve area, so it might not have been considered fair to exile him to the Azores or any other far-flung outpost.

[DCI]

What's this huge amount for? Royalties in arrears? Other associated income?

Number 11 on reciepts.

http://justice4mccannfam.5forum.biz/t3821-so-gonc-has-no-money.

[Alice Purjorick]

LOL

I've no idea where Montclair got the idea that he was "promoted" to Faro from (aside from Levyspiel)... that's where he was based in the first place at some point around the time of the Cipriano fiasco.

His family was in the Algarve area, so it might not have been considered fair to exile him to the Azores or any other far-flung outpost.

I think both sides tend to read far too much into what, for my money was an eminently sensible move by his bosses. In any other case it would have been said "Oh yeah smooth move". Attach the name McCann to it, stand back and watch things rip.

[Alice Purjorick]

Courtesy of Astro from events on 21st Jan 2015I found this interesting:

21. The criminal inquiry was reopened due to the appearance of new evidence?

Not proved.

[Carana]

I think both sides tend to read far too much into what, for my money was an eminently sensible move by his bosses. In any other case it would have been said "Oh yeah smooth move". Attach the name McCann to it, stand back and watch things rip.

I'm not sure what you mean.

Amaral was "promoted" sideways to the nearest place in the general area, which happened to be a larger precinct. What was his new title, if he had one? Or is it simply the fact of having been moved from Portimão to Faro that was considered to qualify as a promotion?

Tavares de Almeida was given "sabbatical leave", often granted to pursue further studies, according to Levyspiel.

Torture cases in both the Cipriano and the Borges cases were filtering through and the authorities had to be seen to be doing something.

Neither of these officers should have been on the case in the first place.

[Carana]

Courtesy of Astro from events on 21st Jan 2015I found this interesting:

21. The criminal inquiry was reopened due to the appearance of new evidence?

Not proved.

I found that interesting as well. The reopening may not be based on new evidence, but on existing evidence in the files that may not have been adequately investigated at the time. And that depends on which files were being considered.

There doesn't seem to have been a comprehensive database at the time, let alone one which would integrate GNR and PJ reports / findings.

Mrs Fenn was burgled, yet whatever statement she'd made to the GNR isn't in the accessible files. Did the PJ check this further, or not? What about all the other burglaries? They would have been in GNR files... somewhere.

I'm not sure that there is one even now, although there may be progress in this direction.