The book has been banned again in PORTUGAL, what about the internet access?

[Miss Taken Identity]

I never claimed they have been cleared as we have been over that point a million times...what's important is that the press are promoting them as cleared and most of the public will believe what they read

Wow what a decleration! evidence? got any?  I think you assume that people who read newspapers actually believe what is written. Nice... and very niave.

I have two issues regarding the book being written, and the case brought against Amaral. But first would like to clarify I am not an Amaral fan or a McCann H****er. Just for the record.

The McCANNS had time to read the book and request parts be removed as they were upsetting, or could he just say this is a thesis. But what he wrote about was in fact what the police were thinking at the time.

The parents being upset, well as the judge said they were bound to find it upsetting, but she did enquire compared to their daughter being missing 'abducted' what was worse. and to my sheer horror they claimed the book.

It really did take my breath away. Gerry's sister saying it made it 1000 times worse? wtf can be worse than your daughter being 'abducted' perhaps tortured/ raped/ murderd. and for them to claim he should not be making money out of Madddies disappearnce   they have made a nice little living out of their daughters demise (whatever that is) thank you very much! not even mentioning the 'press' and their thirty pieces of silver!

There are no winners....Maddie is still missing! last person to see her alive by independant witneses was early in the day  it was claimed she was abducted.

All this misery was started with her parents denying their daughter a safe enviroment to sleep.

AND they feel no shame.

[G-Unit]

As far as i can make sense of it the book was factual on the whole in that it reflected what the investigation found, and  the contents of the book do not offend any of the applicants' fundamental rights. The judge seems to be saying that Amaral, as a public official, should not have suggested that the suspects were guilty, because this could have affected any future prosecution. The publishers and the makers of the video could, as they were not public officials.

[Brietta]

As far as i can make sense of it the book was factual on the whole in that it reflected what the investigation found, and  the contents of the book do not offend any of the applicants' fundamental rights. The judge seems to be saying that Amaral, as a public official, should not have suggested that the suspects were guilty, because this could have affected any future prosecution. The publishers and the makers of the video could, as they were not public officials.

I don't know about affecting any future prosecution particularly when there is no evidence to support one; the judge seemed to be upholding the right to be considered innocent until proven guilty was not abrogated just because  a law enforcement officer was retired.
The judgement also took consideration of the time of writing ~ before his retiral ~ and his sources which were files to which he had privileged information.
In effect ~ such a book should not have been written ~ that seems to be pretty clear.  Now that the credibility has been challenged terrestrially I doubt if the same issues will be honoured by certain internet users.

[G-Unit]

I don't know about affecting any future prosecution particularly when there is no evidence to support one; the judge seemed to be upholding the right to be considered innocent until proven guilty was not abrogated just because  a law enforcement officer was retired.
The judgement also took consideration of the time of writing ~ before his retiral ~ and his sources which were files to which he had privileged information.
In effect ~ such a book should not have been written ~ that seems to be pretty clear.  Now that the credibility has been challenged terrestrially I doubt if the same issues will be honoured by certain internet users.

Had Amaral been a private citizen and not an ex policeman he could have written exactly the same book based on the released files and the McCanns would have been awarded nothing.

[Mr Gray]

As far as i can make sense of it the book was factual on the whole in that it reflected what the investigation found, and  the contents of the book do not offend any of the applicants' fundamental rights. The judge seems to be saying that Amaral, as a public official, should not have suggested that the suspects were guilty, because this could have affected any future prosecution. The publishers and the makers of the video could, as they were not public officials.

the book was not factual..amaral took one of the investigations possibilities and promoted it as fact...it isn't

[G-Unit]

the book was not factual..amaral took one of the investigations possibilities and promoted it as fact...it isn't

The judge said most of the facts in the book were also in the files. His conclusion was his own opinion and there's nothing wrong with having an opinion (so long as you're not a retired police officer apparently).

[OxfordBloo]

What you failed to point out as per usual is that they haven't been cleared because the crime if any is still unknown.  The British press will print any old garbage as long as it fills their own coffers.

The Judgement does clearly state that

1/ The McCanns are innocent of any offence in Portugal
2/ Amaral breached his duty to maintain their innocence.

[OxfordBloo]

As far as i can make sense of it the book was factual on the whole in that it reflected what the investigation found, and  the contents of the book do not offend any of the applicants' fundamental rights. The judge seems to be saying that Amaral, as a public official, should not have suggested that the suspects were guilty, because this could have affected any future prosecution. The publishers and the makers of the video could, as they were not public officials.

The judge also found that Amaral used information gained in carrying out his duties and this was unlawful.

[OxfordBloo]

The judge said most of the facts in the book were also in the files. His conclusion was his own opinion and there's nothing wrong with having an opinion (so long as you're not a retired police officer apparently).

He is free to have an opinion, but as the holder of an office and the possessor of privileged information he is not free to share that information.

[jassi]

He is free to have an opinion, but as the holder of an office and the possessor of privileged information he is not free to share that information.

Is that the actual Law, or one judge's interpretation of the Law? Is there any wriggle room?

[G-Unit]

He is free to have an opinion, but as the holder of an office and the possessor of privileged information he is not free to share that information.

I know. what I'm trying to say is that an ordinary citizen could have written the same book and not been penalised.

[OxfordBloo]

I know. what I'm trying to say is that an ordinary citizen could have written the same book and not been penalised.

I thought your reply was sardonic suggesting that what was decided was exceptional.

Sorry if that was not the case.

[G-Unit]

I thought your reply was sardonic suggesting that what was decided was exceptional.

Sorry if that was not the case.

I don't know whether it was exceptional or not, to be honest. As a layperson it's confusing, I think because we have been told repeatedly that it was a libel trial which the McCanns have now won. Now it appears that it was not about libel at all, but about something else altogether.

[Mr Gray]

The Judgement does clearly state that

1/ The McCanns are innocent of any offence in Portugal
2/ Amaral breached his duty to maintain their innocence.

so the mccanns have been declared innocent by a Portuguese judge....excellent

[Carana]

Had Amaral been a private citizen and not an ex policeman he could have written exactly the same book based on the released files and the McCanns would have been awarded nothing.

Possibly, but I'm not too sure about that. The legal arguments used may simply have been different. Freedom of expression still carries responsibilities whoever you are. And publications intended to inform the public have a duty to make a reasonable effort to ensure that their "facts" correspond to the truth and to amend factual information as it emerges.

Under the penal code, defences to "difamação" (an offence to one's honour or consideration) are the pursuit of a legitimate interest (defined somewhere or other) and the ability to prove the truthfulness or to have a justified belief, born in good faith, in the truthfulness of the facts in question.

Would consciously cherry-picking from the files be considered to be "in good faith"? Can the selected facts be proven, or justifiably believed to be true? Does casting aspersions based solely on cherry-picked facts, when other available information invalidates them a demonstration of "good faith"?

There is clearly a grey area, I'd agree, but I'm not sure that the mere fact of being a private citizen offers "carte blanche" immunity from potential prosecution.

For instance, one could cite until the cows come home that it is a "fact" that Eddie reacted to the boot, and substantiate it by the fact that TdeA said so in his interim report. TdeA did state that - that is a fact. But the truth is that Eddie didn't react to the boot - TdeA got it wrong, and that the evidence that Eddie didn't is readily accessible.

Is repeating the so-called find of a 100% match to Madeleine's DNA in the boot, by citing Brunt et al., (who did indeed state that at one point) justifiable in terms of good faith when the subsequent readily accessible forensic reports state otherwise?