Portuguese judicial secrecy law and its impact on the Madeleine case.

[G-Unit]

Ooh, I know, those media types will say anything, won't they?

When challenged they blame someone else too. I thought it was incumbent on reporters to check their sources. Had they done so they could have avoided paying out to the McCanns, couldn't they? Instead everyone blamed PJ leaks, no doubt knowing how difficult the PJ would find it to rebut those accusations.

Portugal's Judicial secrecy laws seem to have worked in the McCann's favour imo. It allowed them to avoid answering questions and to accuse the PJ of leaking at every opportunity.

[Alice Purjorick]

Day 25 - PM         Leveson Inquiry         12 January 2012

Sworn evidence given by Peter Hill,  editor of the Daily Express between December 2003 and February 2011

Q. Yes. Thank you. Your second statement, Mr Hill, deals with the McCanns.

A. Oh yes.

Q. Of course, you've given evidence to the Parliamentary Select Committee about this, haven't you?

A. Yes, extensively.

Q. Can I take you to that statement and refer to a number of points. At paragraph 2 --

A. What --

Q. This is in the second file under tab 23.

A. Oh, 23. Okay. Yes, paragraph 2.

Q. The question which was asked of you was in effect what fact checking your paper indulged in.

Your answer was:"That is a very, very good question. In this particular case, as I explained to you, the Portuguese police were unable, because of the legal restrictions in Portugal, to make any official comment on the case."
Then I paraphrase: they leaked things to the press and therefore checking the stories was not very easy.
And then you went on to say newspapers operate at high speed, et cetera.

    ////////

A. Of course. We published many, many, many, many stories of all kinds about the McCanns, many stories that were deeply sympathetic to them, some stories that were not.

Q. Yes, but the stories that were not were a little bit more than unsympathetic. Some of them went so far as to
accuse them of killing their child, didn't they?

A. This is what the Portuguese police were telling us.

Q. Yes, but regardless of that, we've already covered that issue, do you accept that some of --

A. You haven't covered it with me.

Q. Just wait, Mr Hill. Do you accept that some of your stories went so far as to accuse them of killing their child?

A. I did not accuse them of killing their child. The stories that I ran were from those who did accuse them, and they were the Portuguese police.

    ////////

Q. Well, the persistence of publication of the stories in relation to the McCanns, where some people might care
extremely deeply, because whether or not they're true and whether or not they're capable of damaging people is
a predominant consideration? Do you begin to see that difference?

A. I perfectly see the difference. On the McCanns story, the entire country had an opinion about that story, and
wherever you went, whether you went to a social gathering or, as somebody said, to the supermarket, people were talking about it and they all had an opinion about it, and these were opinions, these were stronger opinions, and these opinions were informed by the information that was coming from Portugal.
Now, we were not to know at the time that the Portuguese police were not behaving in a proper manner.
Portugal is a civilised country, part of the European Union. We had no reason to believe that its police force was not a proper body. So, as I explained to you, there was an enormous body of opinion on both sides of this story and you couldn't stop that. There was no stopping it.

Q. Apart from to stop publishing it, particularly --

A. That wouldn't have stopped it, because you couldn't -- well, as someone's explained, we now have the Internet,
we have Facebook, we have Twitter, we have all these different things. Information is -- it's a free-for -- it's an information free-for-all that we live in. So whether the newspapers stopped publishing would have made no difference. In fact, it might well have made it worse.

Surely the editor of the Express is not suggesting that the police force of an EU member state is not "a proper body".
Gimme a break [best not say that to the Portuguese Police some think they may misconstrue !]

As the invstigating judge is the arbiter on what constitutes judicial secrecy on his cases I would suggest unless anyone has been canvassing his opinion one way or another the answer is a lemon.

[John]

Surely the editor of the Express is not suggesting that the police force of an EU member state is not "a proper body".
Gimme a break [best not say that to the Portuguese Police some think they may misconstrue !]

As the invstigating judge is the arbiter on what constitutes judicial secrecy on his cases I would suggest unless anyone has been canvassing his opinion one way or another the answer is a lemon.

It could be a case of the Express believing its own propaganda.

[Brietta]

It could be a case of the Express believing its own propaganda.

The editor was giving evidence under oath.

It is well known that here as in Portugal, perjury is an offence for which there are penalties.

[stephen25000]

Surely the editor of the Express is not suggesting that the police force of an EU member state is not "a proper body".
Gimme a break [best not say that to the Portuguese Police some think they may misconstrue !]

As the invstigating judge is the arbiter on what constitutes judicial secrecy on his cases I would suggest unless anyone has been canvassing his opinion one way or another the answer is a lemon.

Ah yes, The Express.

Not known for It's accuracy.

Apparently,  according to today's edition Niburu  should be of concern. *&*%£

[jassi]

The editor was giving evidence under oath.

It is well known that here as in Portugal, perjury is an offence for which there are penalties.

Jonathon Aitken and Jeffrey Archer  also gave evidence under oath.  Your point is ?

[G-Unit]

The editor was giving evidence under oath.

It is well known that here as in Portugal, perjury is an offence for which there are penalties.

There is no reason to believe he was lying, but he was probably defaming when he said;

Now, we were not to know at the time that the Portuguese police were not behaving in a proper manner.
Portugal is a civilised country, part of the European Union. We had no reason to believe that its police force was not a proper body.

[Brietta]

There is no reason to believe he was lying, but he was probably defaming when he said;

Now, we were not to know at the time that the Portuguese police were not behaving in a proper manner.
Portugal is a civilised country, part of the European Union. We had no reason to believe that its police force was not a proper body.

He was voicing an opinion based on observation and experience.

[slartibartfast]

There is no reason to believe he was lying, but he was probably defaming when he said;

Now, we were not to know at the time that the Portuguese police were not behaving in a proper manner.
Portugal is a civilised country, part of the European Union. We had no reason to believe that its police force was not a proper body.

Though you can't libel a body like the police, policemen yes, the police no.

[Eleanor]

There is no reason to believe he was lying, but he was probably defaming when he said;

Now, we were not to know at the time that the Portuguese police were not behaving in a proper manner.
Portugal is a civilised country, part of the European Union. We had no reason to believe that its police force was not a proper body.

He wasn't wrong.  No one realised what The PJ were doing.  Everyone believed that this was a proper Police Force. 

They clearly weren't at the time.  What that little enclave on The Algarve did was absolutely diabolical.

[Eleanor]

Though you can't libel a body like the police, policemen yes, the police no.

Oh, really.  What was going on  on The Algarve at the time was the epitome of The Portuguese Police.  They got their Convictions by Public Opinion.

[John]

He wasn't wrong.  No one realised what The PJ were doing.  Everyone believed that this was a proper Police Force. 

They clearly weren't at the time.  What that little enclave on The Algarve did was absolutely diabolical.

What is diabolical about investigating the parents of a kid missing under suspicious circumstances?  Every police force in the world would have done the same given the background and evidence surely?

[misty]

What is diabolical about investigating the parents of a kid missing under suspicious circumstances?  Every police force in the world would have done the same given the background and evidence surely?

I agree that every police force in the world would have looked at the parents first. The issue is not about procedure, it's all about the integrity of the people paid to investigate crime.

[sadie]

Oh, really.  What was going on  on The Algarve at the time was the epitome of The Portuguese Police.  They got their Convictions by Public Opinion.

They got their Convictions by Public Opinion whipped up by salacious rumours using libellous disinformation and propaganda IMHO ... with very little FACT. 

In some cases NO FACT

Oh .... and by TORTURE and false witness statements later rescinded.

[Eleanor]

What is diabolical about investigating the parents of a kid missing under suspicious circumstances?  Every police force in the world would have done the same given the background and evidence surely?

"Kid".  How utterly awful.  But never mind.  It was only ever some "Kid".

You have it away.  And I seriously hope that you will be ashamed.