Was Gonçalo Amaral fair game given the content of his book?

[Anna]

Nope, not me.

It's just discussion. 99.9% of the country doesn't get involved in it. It's not 'victimisation' or whatever word or words you might care to use to describe it. It's discussion and considering the papers still put the case on their front pages - seven years later - discussion is understandable and very valid.

It is the job of the police to provide enough evidence to bring a case forward for prosecution and without substantial or circumstantial evidence there would be no prosecution actions and a lawyer would be unnecessary..............So it falls on the police alone to make a case for a court hearing if the accused can not afford legal advice  in advance of a court hearing
Please correct me if you think if I am wrong

[Lyall]

Thank you.  But even speculation goes too far sometimes.

That's the nature of the case (with so few facts known). If we were discussing a case in another country, one that didn't involve people you have an emotional attachment to, I don't think you'd be so concerned about the language occasionally used here.

[Carana]

It's the same when people keep asking why did the police think Barry George shot Jill Dando? The police get the blame, but they didn't make the decision to prosecute. The current DPP was involved in George's prosecution and conviction, but few people blame her.

You and they keep blaming the police (just one policeman in your case) when it's the lawyers and judiciary who should be sharing the criticism (but that's clearly not so convenient for your agenda).

I happen to agree with you on the bit that I underlined... i.e., "it's the lawyers and judiciary who should be sharing the criticism".

In theory, a magistrate / investigating judge should have played an active role in directing the police work in the Joana case. However, possibly due to overload, did this actually happen in practice? In the Joana case, it seems to have been more of a rubber-stamping exercise, following a "confession" in dubious circumstances. Then, the obvious question back down to the police was... right, she's confessed, now find the body.

How much time did the lawyers actually spend on analysing this case? What means did they have for expert opinions to counter the assertions made by the PJ?

How easy would it have been for jury members (a relatively rare occurrence) to divorce themselves from all the tabloid "leaks" prior to the case? And who leaked them? How could they have objectively have assessed evidence in the absence of an effective defence? The recorded "reconstruction" presented on the last day of the 3-day trial, must have been quite shocking, but in line with the tabloid "leaks".

It didn't seem to occur to anyone to question the validity of the so-called forensic evidence, nor the conditions under which Leonor and others were interrogated, leading to the initial "confession", let alone how João eventually signed on the dotted line that the reconstruction was "voluntary".

[Eleanor]

That's the nature of the case (with so few facts known). If we were discussing a case in another country, one that didn't involve people you have an emotional attachment to, I don't think you'd be so concerned about the language occasionally used here.

I don't have an emotional attachment to The McCanns.  And I haven't lived in Britain for a very long time.

Do you have an emotional attachment to Amaral?

[Lyall]

I happen to agree with you on the bit that I underlined... i.e., "it's the lawyers and judiciary who should be sharing the criticism".

In theory, a magistrate / investigating judge should have played an active role in directing the police work in the Joana case. However, possibly due to overload, did this actually happen in practice? In the Joana case, it seems to have been more of a rubber-stamping exercise, following a "confession" in dubious circumstances. Then, the obvious question back down to the police was... right, she's confessed, now find the body.

How much time did the lawyers actually spend on analysing this case? What means did they have for expert opinions to counter the assertions made by the PJ?

How easy would it have been for jury members (a relatively rare occurrence) to divorce themselves from all the tabloid "leaks" prior to the case? And who leaked them? How could they have objectively have assessed evidence in the absence of an effective defence? The recorded "reconstruction" presented on the last day of the 3-day trial, must have been quite shocking, but in line with the tabloid "leaks".

It didn't seem to occur to anyone to question the validity of the so-called forensic evidence, nor the conditions under which Leonor and others were interrogated, leading to the initial "confession", let alone how João eventually signed on the dotted line that the reconstruction was "voluntary".

I don't know much about that case, Carana. I can't answer any of those questions, but the jury in the trial would have been one of judges not members of the public? Like in the recent Knox/Sollecito retrial?

[Lyall]

I don't have an emotional attachment to The McCanns.  And I haven't lived in Britain for a very long time.

Do you have an emotional attachment to Amaral?

No, not at all. I hope he doesn't lose the case though because it would likely have implications for other writers in the future if he did.

[Sherlock Holmes]

It's not Gonçalo Amaral's television show and it was not his decision to have a segment involving the psychics.

That's right - it was a strange editorial decision that went against the grain of a lot of what Mr Amaral was trying to say. Probably nothing much to it - just an observation.

[Eleanor]

No, not at all. I hope he doesn't lose the case though because it would likely have implications for other writers in the future if he did.

Only if they want to write unsubstantiated accusations.

[Lyall]

Only if they want to write unsubstantiated accusations.

I would wait to hear what the judge says before you make that assertion.

There's clearly a difference between the book and the film (and TV appearances, but the ones I've seen are similar to Nancy Grace type shows. That kind of show is unknown in the UK but they're not in other parts of the world). The film is more of an issue than the book I'd say.

[Eleanor]

I would wait to hear what the judge says before you make that assertion.

There's clearly a difference between the book and the film (and TV appearances, but the ones I've seen are similar to Nancy Grace type shows. That kind of show is unknown in the UK but they're not in other parts of the world). The film is more of an issue than the book I'd say.

I will agree with that, but the book is still an issue.

[Lyall]

I will agree with that, but the book is still an issue.

Not if the judge says it isn't. But that's only in Portuguese law, I don't think it makes any difference here in the UK whatever happens in Lisbon >@@(*&)

[Mr Gray]

On the last day of the trial the voice of João Cipriano was heard in court by virtue of a video recording made by the Judicial Police during investigations.  In brutal detail he confessed to killing Joana and of disposing of her body.  The defence objected claiming that João's words had no value since the defendants chose not to testify at trial. The judge overruled the objection.

So they both confessed to the same thing.  Don't you think that is just a tad coincidental especially since they had no way of contacting each other to concoct a story?

perhaps it was the pj who supplied the story..we don't know under what circumstances the confession was made...there was no real evidence aginst either of them...it was claimed she was killed and dismembered in the house yet NONE of the blood found matched Joanna...the whole conviction looks ridiculously unsafe...not only to me but also others..portuguese ...who saw all the evidence

[Carana]

I don't know much about that case, Carana. I can't answer any of those questions, but the jury in the trial would have been one of judges not members of the public? Like in the recent Knox/Sollecito retrial?

Sorry, Lyall. I do try to keep the two cases separate, but there are overlapping issues.

In the Joana case, there was a jury as well as judges.

From John's summary:

A total of 45 witnesses, mostly relatives and villagers, testified in court over a trial period of just three days. Four jurors (one man and three women) and three judges decided the verdict. The opinions of the jurors – a 20-year-old student, a physiotherapist, a library employee and a waitress – carried the same weight as that of the judges.
http://miscarriageofjustice.co/index.php?topic=2977.0

The overlapping issues concern the questions in my previous post... if the McCann case had gone to trial. A jury isn't a frequent occurrence in PT trials (only for potential long-term sentences, apparently and even then I'd have to double-check whether it's optional or not).

How likely is it that the jury members would not have been aware of the "leaks" to the press prior to a trial, and how likely is it that they would have had any basis on which to critique "expert" testimony (mainly the PJ officers involved in the case)?

Both families seem to have been caught up in a whirlwind. The McCanns had the intelligence and potential means to have countered the prosecution, and were foreigners with an international media spotlight from slippery stair incidents... but the Cipriano family don't seem to have benefited from a truly fair trial.

According to some Portuguese views, they find it unfair that foreigners get treated better than the Portuguese, and that seems to be a source of resentment... and I can understand that. But the real question, IMO, is why Portuguese people can end up behind bars without a fair trial in the first place. The case of the little boy in Madeira was going that way... except - by some miracle, he was found alive - after the tabloid press had previously stated that the PJ were closing in on the parents/family. I don't know what happened in that case, but if the levadeiros hadn't found him alive, the parents / family and friends could well have found themselves charged with an appalling crime.

[Lyall]

Sorry, Lyall. I do try to keep the two cases separate, but there are overlapping issues.

In the Joana case, there was a jury as well as judges.

From John's summary:

A total of 45 witnesses, mostly relatives and villagers, testified in court over a trial period of just three days. Four jurors (one man and three women) and three judges decided the verdict. The opinions of the jurors – a 20-year-old student, a physiotherapist, a library employee and a waitress – carried the same weight as that of the judges.
http://miscarriageofjustice.co/index.php?topic=2977.0

The overlapping issues concern the questions in my previous post... if the McCann case had gone to trial. A jury isn't a frequent occurrence in PT trials (only for potential long-term sentences, apparently and even then I'd have to double-check whether it's optional or not).

How likely is it that the jury members would not have been aware of the "leaks" to the press prior to a trial, and how likely is it that they would have had any basis on which to critique "expert" testimony (mainly the PJ officers involved in the case)?

Both families seem to have been caught up in a whirlwind. The McCanns had the intelligence and potential means to have countered the prosecution, and were foreigners with an international media spotlight from slippery stair incidents... but the Cipriano family don't seem to have benefited from a truly fair trial.

According to some Portuguese views, they find it unfair that foreigners get treated better than the Portuguese, and that seems to be a source of resentment... and I can understand that. But the real question, IMO, is why Portuguese people can end up behind bars without a fair trial in the first place. The case of the little boy in Madeira was going that way... except - by some miracle, he was found alive - after the tabloid press had previously stated that the PJ were closing in on the parents/family. I don't know what happened in that case, but if the levadeiros hadn't found him alive, the parents / family and friends could well have found themselves charged with an appalling crime.

It was a missing child case, Carana, every policeman's nightmare. They are under so much pressure every time a child disappears, it's difficult for us to appreciate.

I understand your concern about the conviction though.

[Redblossom]

It was a missing child case, Carana, every policeman's nightmare. They are under so much pressure every time a child disappears, it's difficult for us to appreciate.

I understand your concern about the conviction though.

Well said.