UK Justice Forum 🇬🇧
Disappeared and Abducted Children and Young Adults => Madeleine McCann (3) disappeared from her parent's holiday apartment at Ocean Club, Praia da Luz, Portugal on 3 May 2007. No trace of her has ever been found. => Topic started by: ferryman on September 26, 2013, 08:45:34 PM
-
The concluding paragraph of Amaral's book
5. The body, the existence of which has been confirmed by the EVRD and CSI dogs but also by the results of the preliminary laboratory analyses, cannot be found.
The conclusions my team and I have arrived at are the following:
1. The minor, Madeleine McCann died inside apartment 5A of the Ocean Club in Vila da Luz, on the night of May 3rd 2007;
2. There was simulation of abduction.
3. Kate Healy and Gerald McCann were probably involved in the concealment of their daughter's body.
4. The death may have occurred as a result of a tragic accident;
5. The evidence proves the parents' negligence concerning the care and safety of the children.
And from the archiving dispatch:
The non-involvement of Madeleine's parents in any criminally significant action is apparent from the fact that they were not in the apartment at the time of her disappearance, their normal behaviour up to that moment and afterwards, as witnessed by the statements of the witnesses, the analysis of the telephone communications and the conclusions of the experts reports… None of the indications which led to their being made suspects was substantiated later; there was no proof of them having notified the media before the police, the laboratory did not confirm the traces found by the dogs, and the initial e-mail indications transcribed above later turned out to be harmless
…. Therefore having considered the foregoing, I order:
… b) Filing of the papers concerning the suspects Gerald Patrick McCann and Kate Marie Healy, as there is no evidence that they committed any crime defined by Article 277.1 of the Code of Criminal Procedure".
-
Find his Ace or apologize ?>)()<
-
Find his Ace or apologize ?>)()<
Amaral's ace, if he has one, is the dogs.
Let him play it ...
-
At the moment he turns to his lawyer and co-defendants ?>)()<
-
Dream on ferryman...
-
At the moment he turns to his lawyer and co-defendants ?>)()<
Who say he said "they are suspected to be involved". Isn't it legitimate to suspect parents to be involved ? Is it outrageous to suspect them when they refuse to answer to police questions, even if it's a right ? Is it a blaspheme to think they didn't say all the truth when they don't claim in the media they're so sorry that their acquaintances found it useless to do a reconstitution ?
-
Who say he said "they are suspected to be involved". Isn't it legitimate to suspect parents to be involved ? Is it outrageous to suspect them when they refuse to answer to police questions, even if it's a right ? Is it a blaspheme to think they didn't say all the truth when they don't claim in the media they're so sorry that their acquaintances found it useless to do a reconstitution ?
No Anne it isn't 8(0(* Unless ferryman knows evidence that wasn't available in 2008, Mr Amaral's theory appears to be as valid as any other.
-
Amaral's ace, if he has one, is the dogs.
Let him play it ...
Don't forget the DNA - Oh hang on he was wrong about that also. ?>)()<
-
3. Kate Healy and Gerald McCann were probably involved in the concealment of their daughter's body.
this bit made me chuckle ( "probably" ) @)(++(*
That may be the word that makes the difference
Saying that Madeleine died in the apartment libels no-one
Saying that her parents were 'probably' involved in the concealment falls short of accusing them directly, and merely postulates that the possibility exists ... and it does exist, doesn't it ?
-
Don't forget the DNA - Oh hang on he was wrong about that also. ?>)()<
Ah! The DNA.
Let's see. Keela reacted to the boot, but Eddie didn't.
That's blood but no cadaver scent.
Eddie reacted to the key of the car and so did Keela.
Again, blood but no cadaver scent, confirmed in the laboratory: Gerry's blood on the ignition key of the car.
And let's not forget, according to Amaral's own lawyer, Snr Santos, Madeleine could be alive ...
-
Ah! The DNA.
Let's see. Keela reacted to the boot, but Eddie didn't.
That's blood but no cadaver scent.
Eddie reacted to the key of the car and so did Keela.
Again, blood but no cadaver scent, confirmed in the laboratory: Gerry's blood on the ignition key of the car.
And let's not forget, according to Amaral's own lawyer, Snr Santos, Madeleine could be alive ...
Here comes the Judge!
Wait and see what she says 8(0(*
-
Who say he said "they are suspected to be involved". Isn't it legitimate to suspect parents to be involved ? Is it outrageous to suspect them when they refuse to answer to police questions, even if it's a right ? Is it a blaspheme to think they didn't say all the truth when they don't claim in the media they're so sorry that their acquaintances found it useless to do a reconstitution ?
It is absolutely normal for the parents to be suspected.
It is then absolutely normal for the police to investigate them.
The Portuguese have investigated the parents and found no evidence whatsoever against them.
The UK Police have investigated them and declared that they are no longer persons of interest or suspects.
What is wholly abnormal is that these people are then targetted by online hounders and stalkers who cannot abide the thought that the police of two countries have found no evidence of any crime on which they can even be charged.
-
3. Kate Healy and Gerald McCann were probably involved in the concealment of their daughter's body.
this bit made me chuckle ( "probably" ) @)(++(*
Any normal person would cry, not make fun.
-
It is absolutely normal for the parents to be suspected.
It is then absolutely normal for the police to investigate them.
The Portuguese have investigated the parents and found no evidence whatsoever against them.
The UK Police have investigated them and declared that they are no longer persons of interest or suspects.
What is wholly abnormal is that these people are then targetted by online hounders and stalkers who cannot abide the thought that the police of two countries have found no evidence of any crime on which they can even be charged.
But why does it bother you so? If other people have looked at the same information and come to alternative conclusions then so what? You seem to want to squash freedom of opinion. I'm all for stopping unbridled libel but simply questioning the released facts is not libellous. I know there are those that go beyond that on other forums (mainly) but you can't hold the (I think) more moderate sceptics on here responsible for the idiotic behaviour of those that commit these aberrations elsewhere.
I'm perfectly happy for now to consider the McCanns completely innocent (they've not even been charged and may never be) but I'm certain they're not telling the entire truth of how things happened. You and other people hold alternative views. Great, I don't have a problem with that. I don't agree with them, but you're perfectly entitled to hold those views.
-
But why does it bother you so? If other people have looked at the same information and come to alternative conclusions then so what? You seem to want to squash freedom of opinion. I'm all for stopping unbridled libel but simply questioning the released facts is not libellous. I know there are those that go beyond that on other forums (mainly) but you can't hold the (I think) more moderate sceptics on here responsible for the idiotic behaviour of those that commit these aberrations elsewhere.
I'm perfectly happy for now to consider the McCanns completely innocent (they've not even been charged and may never be) but I'm certain they're not telling the entire truth of how things happened. You and other people hold alternative views. Great, I don't have a problem with that. I don't agree with them, but you're perfectly entitled to hold those views.
It bothers me because I believe in civilised society and part of the societal norms I respect is the presumption of innocence. The fact that others cannot respect societal norms and choose to hound and stalk and harass innocent people does actually concern me as I think it should concern all responsible citizens.
Your certainty of them not telling the truth is in reality pure guesswork and totally acceptable. What is not acceptable is the kind of behaviour of Bennett and Amaral who make claims based on that guesswork which damage reputations and ultimately damage the search for a missing little girl.
-
It bothers me because I believe in civilised society and part of the societal norms I respect is the presumption of innocence. The fact that others cannot respect societal norms and choose to hound and stalk and harass innocent people does actually concern me as I think it should concern all responsible citizens.
Your certainty of them not telling the truth is in reality pure guesswork and totally acceptable. What is not acceptable is the kind of behaviour of Bennett and Amaral who make claims based on that guesswork which damage reputations and ultimately damage the search for a missing little girl.
Of course there's a presumption of innocence, but only in legal terms. They're nowhere near a court (current libel trial excepted of course) at the moment so there is no innocence or guilt to be decided anyway. The questioning of their story is not an accusation of guilt, it's merely the equivalent of me (and others, of course) telling someone "I don't believe you" when told a story. The thing with the McCanns is that they've told their story in a massively public fashion so there are lots of people that are well within their rights to say, "I don't believe you" in whatever form they choose - provided, of course, that they don't then move on to libellous territory.
My certainty they're not telling the truth is more than just guesswork... but they have been caught out with lies already (a lie, after all, is a deliberate falsification of the facts) and this has happened on many occasions some of which, I concede, could be attributed to simple mistakes under pressure or faulty memory but many of which cannot. I'm not going to go trawling through the archives again to exemplify every single one as it's tedious to go around the track again on this and it's been well recorded already.
It could, of course, also be argued that your certainty (which I presume you have?) that they are telling the whole truth is also based on pure guesswork as there's no way that you could know for certain. You can presume innocence all you like, but you cannot know for sure at the present time.
-
Of course there's a presumption of innocence, but only in legal terms. They're nowhere near a court (current libel trial excepted of course) at the moment so there is no innocence or guilt to be decided anyway. The questioning of their story is not an accusation of guilt, it's merely the equivalent of me (and others, of course) telling someone "I don't believe you" when told a story. The thing with the McCanns is that they've told their story in a massively public fashion so there are lots of people that are well within their rights to say, "I don't believe you" in whatever form they choose - provided, of course, that they don't then move on to libellous territory.
My certainty they're not telling the truth is more than just guesswork... but they have been caught out with lies already (a lie, after all, is a deliberate falsification of the facts) and this has happened on many occasions some of which, I concede, could be attributed to simple mistakes under pressure or faulty memory but many of which cannot. I'm not going to go trawling through the archives again to exemplify every single one as it's tedious to go around the track again on this and it's been well recorded already.
It could, of course, also be argued that your certainty (which I presume you have?) that they are telling the whole truth is also based on pure guesswork as there's no way that you could know for certain. You can presume innocence all you like, but you cannot know for sure at the present time.
8@??)( 8@??)( 8@??)(
-
Of course there's a presumption of innocence, but only in legal terms. They're nowhere near a court (current libel trial excepted of course) at the moment so there is no innocence or guilt to be decided anyway. The questioning of their story is not an accusation of guilt, it's merely the equivalent of me (and others, of course) telling someone "I don't believe you" when told a story. The thing with the McCanns is that they've told their story in a massively public fashion so there are lots of people that are well within their rights to say, "I don't believe you" in whatever form they choose - provided, of course, that they don't then move on to libellous territory.
My certainty they're not telling the truth is more than just guesswork... but they have been caught out with lies already (a lie, after all, is a deliberate falsification of the facts) and this has happened on many occasions some of which, I concede, could be attributed to simple mistakes under pressure or faulty memory but many of which cannot. I'm not going to go trawling through the archives again to exemplify every single one as it's tedious to go around the track again on this and it's been well recorded already.
It could, of course, also be argued that your certainty (which I presume you have?) that they are telling the whole truth is also based on pure guesswork as there's no way that you could know for certain. You can presume innocence all you like, but you cannot know for sure at the present time.
If they have told so many deliberate lies then why have they been excluded as suspects from SY's investigations? You must think the investigating officers are either thick or naieve.
IMO Much of what is claimed as 'lies' are just the biased interpretations of sceptics who will not rest until they have turned anything and everything the McCanns have said into what they 'wish' they had said.
Rather like Amaral's interpretation in his book of how KM reacted when they were urgently called back to the police station on 4th May which IMO was the complete opposite of the truth and very damaging to KM as a mother - and deliberately intended to be.
And of course we must not forget that the McCanns are not allowed to have any of the normal human flaws that the rest of us have, - even an innocent slip of the tongue is blown up into a major 'crime' and presented as evidence of their guilt.
I believe the McCanns have always told the truth. That doesn't mean every word they utter is accurate because they too are human and subject to making mistakes - but never intentionally IMO.
-
If they have told so many deliberate lies then why have they been excluded as suspects from SY's investigations? You must think the investigating officers are either thick or naieve.
IMO Much of what is claimed as 'lies' are just the biased interpretations of sceptics who will not rest until they have turned anything and everything the McCanns have said into what they 'wish' they had said.
Rather like Amaral's interpretation in his book of how KM reacted when they were urgently called back to the police station on 4th May which IMO was the complete opposite of the truth and very damaging to KM as a mother - and deliberately intended to be.
And of course we must not forget that the McCanns are not allowed to have any of the normal human flaws that the rest of us have, - even an innocent slip of the tongue is blown up into a major 'crime' and presented as evidence of their guilt.
I believe the McCanns have always told the truth. That doesn't mean every word they utter is accurate because they too are human and subject to making mistakes - but never intentionally IMO.
How do you know Benice that the Mccanns have not lied since the start ?
or is this just contrary to your beliefs ?
-
You only need to look at the statements taken on the 4 May 2007, a week later and then look at the Rotatory ones to see how they have morphed.
The very fact that Jane Tanner and Gerry McCann couldn't even agree what side of the road Gerry and Jez were stood on speaks volumes as does her off/on ID of Robert Murat and her various non descriptions of bundleman.
To answer the op however, my own belief is that Mr Amaral will come out of this smelling of roses. No Portuguese Court is going to penalise him for exploring the facts and telling it as it was.
-
If they have told so many deliberate lies then why have they been excluded as suspects from SY's investigations? You must think the investigating officers are either thick or naieve.
IMO Much of what is claimed as 'lies' are just the biased interpretations of sceptics who will not rest until they have turned anything and everything the McCanns have said into what they 'wish' they had said.
Rather like Amaral's interpretation in his book of how KM reacted when they were urgently called back to the police station on 4th May which IMO was the complete opposite of the truth and very damaging to KM as a mother - and deliberately intended to be.
And of course we must not forget that the McCanns are not allowed to have any of the normal human flaws that the rest of us have, - even an innocent slip of the tongue is blown up into a major 'crime' and presented as evidence of their guilt.
I believe the McCanns have always told the truth. That doesn't mean every word they utter is accurate because they too are human and subject to making mistakes - but never intentionally IMO.
Believe being the operative word, how naive or trusting are you though? Likewise, many people don't believe the Mccanns have been truthful about things, several instances are well documented but if you are of the Clarence Mitchell school of thought, then there is always an innocent explanation for anything and everything that is found or not found...quite a mystic meg isnt he? Seeing as his opinions are based on personal belief only! So you will excuse people if they refuse just to take things on faith! And suspend all rational thoughts.
PS as to your first sentence, this MAY be true, but you dont KNOW its true...because, as has been explained before, if they WERE, SY would hardly be singing it off the rooftops....would they?
-
Believe being the operative word, how naive or trusting are you though? Likewise, many people don't believe the Mccanns have been truthful about things, several instances are well documented but if you are of the Clarence Mitchell school of thought, then there is always an innocent explanation for anything and everything that is found or not found...quite a mystic meg isnt he? Seeing as his opinions are based on personal belief only! So you will excuse people if they refuse just to take things on faith! And suspend all rational thoughts.
PS as to your first sentence, this MAY be true, but you dont KNOW its true...because, as has been explained before, if they WERE, SY would hardly be singing it off the rooftops....would they?
[/b]
Well there you go - imo a typical example of refusing to believe the very clear statement made by SY regarding the McCanns nor their friends being either suspects or persons of interest - and trying to make it mean the opposite.
IMO If the McCanns and their friends ARE suspects then SY would not have made ANY statement at all about them - unless of course you think a double-bluff is being perpetrated - and it's all a big sham to give them a false sense of security - before SY pounce on them! If you do - then IMO you really are clutching at straws Red.
(Anyway - must go out now - so will catch up later)
-
If they have told so many deliberate lies then why have they been excluded as suspects from SY's investigations? You must think the investigating officers are either thick or naieve.
IMO Much of what is claimed as 'lies' are just the biased interpretations of sceptics who will not rest until they have turned anything and everything the McCanns have said into what they 'wish' they had said.
Rather like Amaral's interpretation in his book of how KM reacted when they were urgently called back to the police station on 4th May which IMO was the complete opposite of the truth and very damaging to KM as a mother - and deliberately intended to be.
And of course we must not forget that the McCanns are not allowed to have any of the normal human flaws that the rest of us have, - even an innocent slip of the tongue is blown up into a major 'crime' and presented as evidence of their guilt.
I believe the McCanns have always told the truth. That doesn't mean every word they utter is accurate because they too are human and subject to making mistakes - but never intentionally IMO.
For me, the most important (proven and demonstarable) lie told by Amaral is his depiction of Mark Harrison's role in the investigation -- almost certainly the source of the canard that the British 'developed the case' against the McCanns, and also the crux of what so much else of Amarals fantasies masquerading as "facts" rests on.
That chapter in Amaral's book really is the most disgraceful and easily disprovable lie in the whole of his text ...
-
[/b]
Well there you go - imo a typical example of refusing to believe the very clear statement made by SY regarding the McCanns nor their friends being either suspects or persons of interest - and trying to make it mean the opposite.
IMO If the McCanns and their friends ARE suspects then SY would not have made ANY statement at all about them - unless of course you think a double-bluff is being perpetrated - and it's all a big sham to give them a false sense of security - before SY pounce on them! If you do - then IMO you really are clutching at straws Red.
(Anyway - must go out now - so will catch up later)
Why would Redwood make a statement? Because he was ASKED the specific question.
I didnt say I didnt believe it or try to make it mean somethng else, I asked you a question....IF they were suspects do YOU think SY would state this? Sigh
-
Unfortunately though the facts add up to evidence and the evidence can support Amaral's thesis just as strongly as the abduction claim otherwise none of us would still be talking about it six years on.
As far as SY are concerned they are playing it very cool.
-
Unfortunately though the facts add up to evidence and the evidence can support Amaral's thesis just as strongly as the abduction claim otherwise none of us would still be talking about it six years on.
As far as SY are concerned they are playing it very cool.
No they don't.
Amaral says the McCanns drove Madeleine somewhere dead in the car and the facts disprove that.
Amaral says Madeleine died in the apartment and Mr Gordon's shaving cut is a (plausible) alternative explanation of the dog alert.
Amaral says the Smiths saw Gerry and the final PJ report says Gerry was in the Tapas restaurant. More than that, all Mr Smith's children disagree with their father that they saw Gerry.
Amaral has nowhere to turn ...
-
No they don't.
Amaral says the McCanns drove Madeleine somewhere dead in the car and the facts disprove that.
No. They don't prove it, but they don't disprove it either. It's uncertain. You're trying to make it sound certain. That's... well, lying if we're frank.
Amaral says Madeleine died in the apartment and Mr Gordon's shaving cut is a (plausible) alternative explanation of the dog alert.
I've cut myself shaving dozens of times. Sometimes really quite badly. I've never once had a single drop hit the floor. Unless Mr. Gordon was using a cut-throat razor, he's unlikely to have had that happen. It's "possible" (barely) but implausible. Surely would have been provable by DNA comparison anyway.
Amaral says the Smiths saw Gerry and the final PJ report says Gerry was in the Tapas restaurant. More than that, all Mr Smith's children disagree with their father that they saw Gerry.
They don't disagree. They're ambivalent about it: "Questioned, states that she would probably not be able to recognise the individual or the child" - Aofie Smith
Amaral has nowhere to turn ...
Why do you persist in stating the above things over and over as facts? You've done this loads of times in the past on different forums and you've been corrected every time. Yet you persist in trotting out the same stuff over and over again. This is tantamount to propaganda and does not help matters.
-
It is absolutely normal for the parents to be suspected.
It is then absolutely normal for the police to investigate them.
The Portuguese have investigated the parents and found no evidence whatsoever against them.
The UK Police have investigated them and declared that they are no longer persons of interest or suspects.
What is wholly abnormal is that these people are then targetted by online hounders and stalkers who cannot abide the thought that the police of two countries have found no evidence of any crime on which they can even be charged.
Spot on gilet.
-
Of course there's a presumption of innocence, but only in legal terms. They're nowhere near a court (current libel trial excepted of course) at the moment so there is no innocence or guilt to be decided anyway. The questioning of their story is not an accusation of guilt, it's merely the equivalent of me (and others, of course) telling someone "I don't believe you" when told a story. The thing with the McCanns is that they've told their story in a massively public fashion so there are lots of people that are well within their rights to say, "I don't believe you" in whatever form they choose - provided, of course, that they don't then move on to libellous territory.
My certainty they're not telling the truth is more than just guesswork... but they have been caught out with lies already (a lie, after all, is a deliberate falsification of the facts) and this has happened on many occasions some of which, I concede, could be attributed to simple mistakes under pressure or faulty memory but many of which cannot. I'm not going to go trawling through the archives again to exemplify every single one as it's tedious to go around the track again on this and it's been well recorded already.
It could, of course, also be argued that your certainty (which I presume you have?) that they are telling the whole truth is also based on pure guesswork as there's no way that you could know for certain. You can presume innocence all you like, but you cannot know for sure at the present time.
It is precisely because they are so far from any court hearing/trial that presumption of innocence matters. Whether the McCanns have told their story far and wide is irrelevant. They are entitled to that presumption.
There is a massive difference between someone saying "I don't believe you!" or asking open questions about the case and someone, who by dint of his previously (till he was unceremoniously removed for his gross misconduct) been the lead detective on the case, decides to publish damming allegations about the McCanns. Amaral has in my view, moved on to libellous territory. He offers no proof of his allegations, merely speculation.
You claim to know of specific proven lies from the McCanns. There we must differ. I am aware of no deliberate falsehood having been proven by them. Till I see some, I will remain reluctant to believe that it does exist. There are many differences between witness statements for sure but such are to be expected in any case especially when statements are taken at times of extreme anxiety on the part of the witness which would have been the case with the McCanns just 12 or so hours after the disappearance of their eldest child for example.
As for your presumption that I am convinced of the truthfulness of the McCanns. I am only convinced in the sense that no-one has yet shown me any confirmed deliberate falsehood (lie) from them. Having never seen any such then I have no reason to believe such exists. Can you show me otherwise?
However, I have said frequently on this forum that I am not convinced of their innocence or guilt. I am entirely open-minded about what happened to Madeleine McCann. She may be dead or alive. There is no proof of what happened.
But I will not accuse anyone of a crime without evidence of them having been involved in that crime. That is where I take issue with a large number of anti McCanns. And there is absolutely no evidence whatsoever that shows the McCanns were involved in the death or the cover up of a death of their daughter.
-
And from the archiving dispatch:
The non-involvement of Madeleine's parents in any criminally significant action is apparent from the fact that they were not in the apartment at the time of her disappearance,
This comment concerns me greatly as I cannot see how they could make such a claim. By his own admission Gerry McCann claims he could very well have been in the apartment at the time of her disappearance.
-
This comment concerns me greatly as I cannot see how they could make such a claim. By his own admission Gerry McCann claims he could very well have been in the apartment at the time of her disappearance.
There's a parallel universe where apparently the supporters of the McCanns have already discarded anything they consider derogatory to the McCanns and their friends. This includes treating anything where doubt remains (inconclusive DNA, timelines, whereabouts of the protagonists for example) as conclusively in favour of the McCanns (i.e. exonerating them).
Furthermore the same universe allows them to treat comments of the LP and PJ as being invalid as they have decided that later comments and/or documents in some way "top trump" or render outdated the PJ summary and the comments of the asst. chief constable of the LP. Even though the LP, to the best of my searching, have not ever rescinded that comment and the PJ investigative summary from 2007 was still alive and kicking come the court case in Lisbon 2010 which, to the best of my knowledge, came after the AG archiving summary, no?
-
This comment concerns me greatly as I cannot see how they could make such a claim. By his own admission Gerry McCann claims he could very well have been in the apartment at the time of her disappearance.
The line is just diplomacy I think Angelo. Including it avoids having to say anything specific about the witness (JT).
-
This comment concerns me greatly as I cannot see how they could make such a claim. By his own admission Gerry McCann claims he could very well have been in the apartment at the time of her disappearance.
You're very right, Angelo, I never thought of that ! This sentence being one, if not the whitest, of the Final Report's pearls, it was like a tree masking the forest.
-
This comment concerns me greatly as I cannot see how they could make such a claim. By his own admission Gerry McCann claims he could very well have been in the apartment at the time of her disappearance.
That never even occured to me before ... but you are absolutely right !
Gerry claimed that he was probably in the apartment ... in the children's bedroom, in fact ... at the same time that the abductor was there
Far from 'being away' from the apartment when Madeleine disappeared, Gerry claims he there 'mid-abduction !
-
Probably Lyall, don't know if you've been around on blogs/forums from the start but I remember posts from people who wrote of their own feelings and beliefs about what happened. Now everything is from google, wiki, statistics, translators, doctors, scientists, policemen etc . Probably since the files were released then suddenly all the bloggers morphed into professionals who maybe use the internets knowledge to enhance their writing. Not everyone mind you but you can usually tell .
.
There were a few people very early on who were very hysterical and telling people who doubted the mccanns story from the minute they saw them on tv, and there were many, as happens, right or wrong, that everythng all speculation and no facts at all were known, ie nothng at all, this went on for months and months, the shut up message and dont question was right from then,and carried in fir years and years with insidious campaigns to shut people up...British media were 80 per cent diagraceful in all this too... fast forward many years, the public here and in portugal had their views morphing gradually based on early coverage, tv interviews of the couple, police activities, more coverage, more interviews, more online discussions, more tv and radio discussions,not just on *maddie boards* but all kinds of boards,then arguido status, then more tv coverage, more interviews, UK media biased blitzes year on year, media saturation, pj files coming out,albeit most people didnt see them, but they saw the reports of eddie and keela in the papers, mccanns going on the defensive post sept 07 aided and abbetted by clarence mitchell and other agencies, all the time ghe debate still infused with the child neglect issue if nothng else, then the mccanns becoming what seemed like vexatious litigants, news coming out about their fund and the vast mjority of it going to lawyers pr merchants etc, the mccanns negatve image was NOT caused by Mr Amaral who most had never heard of and if they read his name in a paper probably wouldnt remember it a day or a month later, In fact, many *neutral*peoples view of the mccanns have been shifted by Kate Mccanns own book years later and also the prime minister of the UK agreeing to spend endless money trying to solve this case! IMO the PP should have charged them, taken them to court and lost or won.....that would have put an end to it early doors instead of leaving it hanging.....sorry for long post..... I could say thrice as more but wont
@)(++(*
-
That never even occured to me before ... but you are absolutely right !
Gerry claimed that he was probably in the apartment...in the children's bedroom, in fact...at the same time that the abductor was there.
Far from 'being away' from the apartment when Madeleine disappeared, Gerry claims he was there 'mid-abduction!
THE TRUTH ABOUT THAT VISIT:
1st statement 4 May 2007
Yesterday, after the daily routine, MADELEINE and the twins were put to bed in their respective beds, and he stresses put to bed, at 7.30 pm. The deponent and his wife remained in the apartment to relax and drink a glass of wine until 8.30 pm. After checking the children, the deponent and his wife and the adults went to the "Tapas" restaurant, around 50 metres away, where they had dinner together. As usual, every half hour and considering that the restaurant was close to the apartment, the deponent or his wife went to check if the children were ok. Thus, at 9.05 pm, the deponent entered the club, using his key, the door being locked, and went to the children's bedroom and noted that the twins and Madeleine were in perfect condition. He then went to the toilet, where he remained for a few instants, left the apartment, and then crossed ways with someone with whom he had played tennis, who had a baby buggy, also a British citizen, with whom he had a brief conversation. He then returned to the restaurant.
2nd statement 10 May 2007
Despite what he said in his previous statements, he states now and with certainty, that he left with KATE through the back door which he consequently closed but did not lock, given that that is only possible from the inside. Concerning the front door, although he is certain that it was closed, it is unlikely that it was locked, because they left through the back door.
They took the usual route to the “TAPAS”, where they arrived a little after 20H35, not having passed on the route anyone known nor detected anything abnormal. Asked, he said that the dinner bookings were made since Monday, it was already the intention of the group to take their meals there. They were the first of the group to arrive, seating themselves at the biggest table, as usual, which is located in the middle between other tables, under an awning with a transparent plastic surface at the front. He mentions that they were seated at the table, in a position that allowed the deponent to see almost the entire back door of his apartment, through which they left and entered and which gave access to the living room.
He adds that, among other people whom he does not recall, at one of the small tables was the CARPENTER couple, whom he also met playing tennis and with whom they spoke until the other group members began to arrive. He does not recall the order of arrival but he has the idea that MATTHEW and RACHEL were the first to arrive after the deponent. As time went by, the rest of the group arrived until all nine adults were there. At around 21H00, MATTHEW stood up from the table, saying that he was going to check on the children. Nevertheless, he did not say that he would go to check on the deponent’s children, and it was only after the disappearance of MADELEINE that he told him that at 21h00 the shutters of the children's bedroom window were closed. At 21H05, MATTHEW returned, the time at which the deponent left the table to go check on his children.
He walked the normal route up to the back door, which being open he only had to slide, and while he was entering the living room, he noticed that the children's bedroom door was not ajar as he had left it but half-way open, which he thought was strange, having then thought that possibly MADELEINE had got up to go to sleep in his bedroom, so as to avoid the noise produced by her siblings. Therefore, he entered the children's bedroom and established visual contact with each of them, checking and he is certain of this, that the three were deeply asleep. He left the children's bedroom returning to place the door how he had already previously described, then went to the bathroom. Everything else was normal, the shutters, curtains and windows closed, very dark, there only being the light that came from the living room.
He adds that he did not enter any other part of the residence, where he was for only two or three minutes, leaving yet again through the back door, that he closed but did not lock. He clarifies that he returned without checking any other couple’s children, even because he had not been asked to do so.
After leaving through the side gate...
tbc
-
MORE TRUTH:
G McCann Arguido interview 7 Sep 2007
When asked at what time he went to check on the children the night Madeleine disappeared, he recalls that this was around 21:04 according to his watch. He remembers that once inside the apartment he was surprised that the door to the children's room was slightly more open than how he had left it when he and Kate left for dinner. However, it could have been Madeleine who had opened the door after waking and getting up, eventually to go to her parents’ room. On this occasion, the three children were lying in their beds asleep, he is sure of this. Moreover, he says that with respect to Madeleine she was in the same position in which he had left her at the beginning of the night. Madeleine was lying down on her left side, completely uncovered, i.e. lying on top of the covers, with the soft toy and blanket, both pink, next to her head; he does not know if they were in the position that can be seen in the photograph attached to the files
Daily Mail 22 Sep 2007
Madeleine McCann's parents say they believe that an intruder hid inside their holiday apartment before snatching their daughter from her bed.
Gerry McCann says he is convinced that, when he checked on Madeleine at 9.05pm on the evening she disappeared, the abductor was somewhere inside the ground-floor flat.
He thinks that the intruder - who would have entered the flat through an unlocked patio door - would have pounced almost immediately after he left.
It would have taken seconds to scoop up the little girl andescape through a bedroom window.
If Mr McCann's theory is correct, it means that he would have been within yards of his daughter's abductor - and could easily have stumbled upon him or her.
Yesterday a friend of the family claimed that having thought back over the events of May 3, Mr McCann recalls noticing that Madeleine's bedroom door was open when he went to check on her.
He thinks that the door was left open because the intruder did not have time to shut it when he heard Mr McCann approaching.
Gerry McCann believes Madeleine's abductor hid inside while he checked on the children.
According to the friend, the intruder would have hidden himself somewhere else in the flat - possibly the bathroom or the master bedroom -whilst Mr McCann checked on his children.
As soon as he left, the kidnapper struck.
The McCanns now believe the abductor got in the apartment more than an hour before the alarm was raised.
Mr McCann checked on the children at 9.05pm and saw Madeleine asleep in her bed with the twins Sean and Amelie in cots beside her.
But the door to the bedroom was open and although Mr McCann thought nothing of it at the time, he is now certain he had previously shut it.
A source close to the family today told the Standard: "When Gerry went to check on Madeleine he realised the bedroom door was open. Gerry is firmly of the view the abductor was already in the apartment.
"When he went in he saw Madeleine was asleep but the bedroom door was slightly open. He thought, 'That is odd' because he had left it firmly closed. But all the children were asleep. So he just went in and closed the door again and came out at about 9.10pm.
"Gerry is convinced the man must have been hiding and once Gerry went out through the patio doors the only way out for the abductor was through the window.
"The front door was locked so the kidnapper took Madeleine and climbed out of the window.
"The theory is the man came in through the patio doors, knowing he has a few minutes until the McCanns' next check. The rear doors are out of sight from the tapas bar where the McCanns and their friends are eating.
"The abductor goes in and he hides and when Gerry goes into the bedroom, he just thinks he didn't close the bedroom door properly.
"When Gerry leaves, the man realises he only has a few minutes. He thinks the only way to get out without being seen is through the window," the source added.
-
I'm a Columbo fan myself
They always make that 'one' mistake don't they ? ... however perfectly executed the crime, there is always that one oversight
If this was a a Columbo film, the 'one' mistake would be the window ... the one that they claimed the abductor broke into ... but which was found to have been opened from the inside
That would have been Columbo's "aha" moment
Well in her statement to police she said she never touched the window..fast forward two years later she tells Oprah Winfrey she ran to the window to look out presumably touching it whilst looking out...didnt Mr Amaral and co decide the prints found on the inside were made by someone opening a window?
-
Nope. Watch the drama and you'll see what I mean. The actress playing the missing child's mother herself mentioned K McCann in an interview before it was screened.
Lyall!!! The actress did indeed give an interview about the Mccann case and prepping about what its like to lose a child....though WHY it had to be the Mccann case I dont know....Probably because its the most recent case? or maybe not...April Jones was more recent..I know people make connections and this series had tenuous ones ie it happened in MAY 2008 the child was 4/5, the parents were partying at the time, not looking after their kids particularly,I DID spot the boat outside their house was called EDDIE, LOL, Talk about a mssing blanket, Tamsin a character being a witness in mccanns story, callum being their webmasters name? oh dead sorry cant make a REAL full connection, didnt the boy end up strangling himself copying a game from older kids?
eta I remember when the Suspicions of Mr Whicher came out on ITV...much talk was about about similarities....with this case..and Mr Whicher the disgraced detextive was vindicated in the end for his suspicions!!!..maybe ITV will solve the case one day, it certainly wont be Lorraine Kelly though LOL
-
You'll be in serious trouble one of these days Bennett.
Oops, you already are. 8-)(--)
Well, blonk ... ARE you Tony Bennet ?
If you are not, then speak up up now and end the gleeful speculation ( Admin will help you if that is the case, I am sure )
If you ARE Tony Bennet, then you might think of reconsidering your membership of this forum ... if only because the last thing we need is a 'focal point' that will serve no other purpose than to be a distraction and diversionary obstacle to genuine debate
Tony Bennet is a busted flush, and if you are he, you must acknowledge that
If you are not, then please accept my apologies and make it clear to the forum that you are not who some members are claiming you are
-
LoL!!!!
@)(++(*
-
Lyall!!! The actress did indeed give an interview about the Mccann case and prepping about what its like to lose a child....though WHY it had to be the Mccann case I dont know....Probably because its the most recent case? or maybe not...April Jones was more recent..I know people make connections and this series had tenuous ones ie it happened in MAY, the child was 4/5, the parents were partying at the time, I DID spot the boat outside their house was called EDDIE, LOL, Talk about a mssing blanket, sorry cant make a REAL full connection, didnt the boy end up strangling himself copying a game from older kids?
Yep that's what happened. The April Jones case more recent but that one was solved, had to be an unsolved one. I missed the boat (got to watch it again now), but May 3rd isn't very subtle is it. I don;t think there could be too many connections, or ITV might be in the High Court >@@(*&) It was interesting though. I do think the writer isn't being sensationalist. There's a point to it ?>)()<
-
Yep that's what happened. The April Jones case more recent but that one was solved, had to be an unsolved one. I missed the boat (got to watch it again now), but May 3rd isn't very subtle is it. I don;t think there could be too many connections, or ITV might be in the High Court >@@(*&) It was interesting though. I do think the writer isn't being sensationalist. There's a point to it ?>)()<
Didnt know it was actually May 3rd, oooer tv production companies hinting? Thats a discourse ive never come across , its quite a spooky thing
-
I'm a Columbo fan myself
They always make that 'one' mistake don't they ? ... however perfectly executed the crime, there is always that one oversight
If this was a a Columbo film, the 'one' mistake would be the window ... the one that they claimed the abductor broke into ... but which was found to have been opened from the inside
That would have been Columbo's "aha" moment
Perhaps the window : once forced or open, there was no possible return. Though it turned out to be an impossible way in from the outside and an absurd way out. Could they say "actually Kate opened the shutters and window to look outside in the car park and I didn't realise, there was some confusion but we were in such a state..." ?
-
Didnt know it was actually May 3rd, oooer tv production companies hinting? Thats a discourse ive never come across , its quite a spooky thing
That's what I thought Red 8)-))) It was definitely thought provoking.
-
That's what I thought Red 8)-))) It was definitely thought provoking.
Mccanns be suing itv production soon lol for daring to HINT x y z then thats if theres any mney left to sue anyone else LOL
Nah, seriously, I think some people may play around with scenarios, stories and make their dramas and to hell whats made with it
;)
-
Perhaps the window : once forced or open, there was no possible return. Though it turned out to be an impossible way in from the outside and an absurd way out. Could they say "actually Kate opened the shutters and window to look outside in the car park and I didn't realise, there was some confusion but we were in such a state..." ?
The McCanns claimed that they must have been 'watched' for days ... their Private Dick, Dave, confirmed as much when he pointed out the pimply man seen 'loitering' outside the apartment days before
Not only that, the McCanns even claimed this 'watching' abductor went as far as to enter their apartment the night before ... on a 'recce'
Here's the thing though ... when he did his 'recce' the night before, he apparently used the unlocked patio doors ( which, as an artful 'watcher' he would, of course, been aware presented easy access )
Yet on the night of the actual abduction, he didn't bother using the clearly successful route he had used on his 'practice run' the previous evening ... and elected instead, to break in through the window
Nah ... if this was an abduction, then that window wouldn't have been opened at all ... there was simply no NEED for it to have been ( it wasn't used used for entry or exit afterall, as forensics have proven )
That was definately the Columbo mistake
-
Mccanns be suing itv production soon lol for daring to HINT x y z then thats if theres any mney left to sue anyone else LOL
Nah, seriously, I think some people may play around with scenarios, stories and make their dramas and to hell whats made with it
;)
8((()*/ I hope so. Drama might be easier than documentary too. I can't see us getting any of them anytime soon.
-
There seems to be a recurring theme with the McCann sceptics.
A liking for TV detective programmes.
Am I right?
You can't beat a good Poirot-like denouement with all nine suspects in the room, Neeley 8(0(*
-
8((()*/ I hope so. Drama might be easier than documentary too. I can't see us getting any of them anytime soon.
I dont get it though...surely police run investigations....not tv companies... Oh well I have forgotten the time nite
-
There seems to be a recurring theme with the McCann sceptics.
A liking for TV detective programmes.
Am I right?
mebbies
That's the thing you see ... there is regular old life outside of forums and McCann obsession
I am starting to worry that I am being 'drawn in' to this twilight world where the lives of others ... with their own trials and tribulations ... is becoming a bit too time consuming to be healthy
It's just that I have found it quite fascinating that some people are so personally invested in this case
... the nearest I have seen to it is in dedicated football supporters .... or on Digital Spy during Big Brother season
-
I dont get it though...surely police run investigations....not tv companies... Oh well I have forgotten the time nite
There's a line in The Guilty where the top cop says to the officer in charge of the investigation "If you make an accusation like that [against the missing child's parents] it will end your career."
Only drama though Neeley. 8(0(*
-
There's a line in The Guilty where the top cop says to the officer in charge of the investigation "If you make an accusation like that it will end your career."
Only drama though Neeley. 8(0(*
Here's another one, from a Sherlock Holmes classic :
"When a doctor does go wrong, he is the worse of criminals. He has the nerve and he has the knowledge"
-
Here's another one, from a Sherlock Holmes classic :
"When a doctor does go wrong, he is the worse of criminals. He has the nerve and he has the knowledge"
>@@(*&) Good one.
-
mebbies
That's the thing you see ... there is regular old life outside of forums and McCann obsession
I am starting to worry that I am being 'drawn in' to this twilight world where the lives of others ... with their own trials and tribulations ... is becoming a bit too time consuming to be healthy
It's just that I have found it quite fascinating that some people are so personally invested in this case
... the nearest I have seen to it is in dedicated football supporters .... or on Digital Spy during Big Brother season
For many its just a mystery to be solved, like a jigsaw puzzle, a logic quiz or a hard sudoku puzzle, people do get drawn in and obsessed..nothing wrong with that, whether the little mite is alive or dead! Most probably the latter unfortunately nite
-
There's a line in The Guilty where the top cop says to the officer in charge of the investigation "If you make an accusation like that [against the missing child's parents] it will end your career."
Only drama though Neeley. 8(0(*
as happened to mr whicher and his middle class suspects
>@@(*&)
I suppose history can repeat itself
-
All of you quoting T.V. programmes.
Interesting.
The truth is out there ?>)()<
-
as happened to mr whicher and his middle class suspects
>@@(*&)
I suppose history can repeat itself
I missed that film Red 8()-000(
I'll read some reviews.
-
Ah with you now, I know the case 8((()*/
-
Here's another one, from a Sherlock Holmes classic :
"When a doctor does go wrong, he is the worse of criminals. He has the nerve and he has the knowledge"
Speaking of Holmes and Columbo, I have been looking for a clip I saw a few years ago of a scene between two actors playing Sherlock Holmes and Columbo meeting each other for the first time. It was excellently written, and hilarious, but I can't remember what it was called or who the actors were, so haven't managed to find it.
Does it ring any bells?
Holmes and Columbo are trying to work something out together. Columbo is pretending that he doesn't understand much of what is going on. Holmes in turn, who cannot be expected to know who Columbo is, has of course completely worked him out. Such a good piece.
-
Interesting.
You though ... not so much
Lighten up Neeley ... it's late, and we're all just folk on a forum
In the 'real world' away from this ridiculous forum war, we all might get on famously ... mightn't we ?
-
Well in her statement to police she said she never touched the window..fast forward two years later she tells Oprah Winfrey she ran to the window to look out presumably touching it whilst looking out...didnt Mr Amaral and co decide the prints found on the inside were made by someone opening a window?
Lol ! Forums have taught them a lot.
-
You're going all James Joyce there Red 8(>(( Finnegan's Wake.
Very funny there, Lyall. Personally I am a big fan of Red's literary style.
-
Speaking of Holmes and Columbo, I have been looking for a clip I saw a few years ago of a scene between two actors playing Sherlock Holmes and Columbo meeting each other for the first time. It was excellently written, and hilarious, but I can't remember what it was called or who the actors were, so haven't managed to find it.
Does it ring any bells?
Holmes and Columbo are trying to work something out together. Columbo is pretending that he doesn't understand much of what is going on. Holmes in turn, who cannot be expected to know who Columbo is, has of course completely worked him out. Such a good piece.
I havn't seen that one ... I'd like to though ( I'll do a bit of googling and IMDB'ing tomorrow )
-
You though ... not so much
Lighten up Neeley ... it's late, and we're all just folk on a forum
In the 'real world' away from this ridiculous forum war, we all might get on famously ... mightn't we ?
Interesting you say that. I was just thinking recently that if we all met up in a waterfront cafe in Portugal to discuss the Arts, current events, share holiday snaps etc. - would be nice wouldn't it - the people who are at loggerheads on the forum could end up getting on like a house on fire.
-
as happened to mr whicher and his middle class suspects
>@@(*&)
I suppose history can repeat itself
"The suspicions of Mr Whicher", it's a book. I always found Mr Whicher and Mr Amaral had a lot in common.
-
There's a line in The Guilty where the top cop says to the officer in charge of the investigation "If you make an accusation like that [against the missing child's parents] it will end your career."
In fact it's the most difficult situation that a police inspector can have to face.
-
I don't think I have ever said a bad word against you icabodcrane.
Please correct me if I'm wrong.
No, you havn't Neeley, to me, you've always been polite and generous ... which is why I wish you could let your hair down and join in with a bit of harmless banter once in a while
*in my best Mrs Doyle voice* ... g'wan, g'wan g'wan 8(0(*
-
Lol ! Forums have taught them a lot.
Havent they just
The original story was that Kate went in at 10 pm and found the window and shutter open and the curtains open
They insist the abduction happened at 9.15
matt Oldfield did a check inside at 9.30.. The curtians were shut
Soooo that means the abductor could not have acted before matts check
on 10 May Mccanns made a joint statement with all the others and kate ran over and pulled the curtains open
In kates 4th may statement she said she found them open
But then two years later on Oprah Winfrey show and their documentary at rhe same time, she says the curtains were closed on her check at 10 pm and the wind blew them open
In other words it wasnt until forums commented on disxrepancies their stories changed
Never did kate mccann say in her police statements the wind opened the curtains lol, it was found open and from joint statement she ran over and opened the curtains lol
Hello? N gn
-
If she died in the flat who was more likely to dispose of her remains ? It would be very hypocritical to suggest otherwise.
-
Amaral doesn't have to turn anywhere. It was already proven that he didn't commit any crime by the publication of his book - condition to demand a compensation for defamation. But as can be read in here (sorry for the extension of the quotes), no such crime was committed.
From the Appeals Court that lifted the ban on the book:
«The book that was written by the first defendant, Dr. Gonçalo Amaral, presents a thesis that was at one time defended by several participants in the police investigation: that little Madeleine died accidentally and that her parents, here the first applicants, were suspected of concealing the cadaver.
This defendant was the Coordinating Inspector of the investigation into the case of the disappearance, thus being the most qualified police officer who intervened in the investigation until the time when, through a decision from the Judiciary Police’s (PJ) directory, he was removed from that function.
In that role, the defendant was deeply involved in the entire investigation and had the opportunity to formulate all of the possible conclusions about the case, while it was under investigation.
Approximately 5 months later, Dr. Gonçalo Amaral was removed from the investigation through a decision of the PJ's directory.
As he clarifies several times throughout the book, the author felt the need to write it right away in order to, as he says, "recover my good name, which was publicly dragged through the mud while the institution that I served for 26 years, the Portuguese Judiciary Police, did not allow me to defend myself, nor defended me institutionally. I asked for permission to speak out in that sense, a request that remains unanswered to this day. I fully respected the PJ's rules, and remained in silence. Nevertheless, said silence was tearing my dignity apart.
Later on, I was removed from the investigation. I then decided that it was time for me to defend myself in a public way. Therefore, I immediately requested my retirement, so I could regain the plenitude of my freedom of expression."
This is a first point – and one that is not small – that should be registered: the author feels he is the victim of injustice and wants to re-establish the truth, at least his truth or his vision of truth, even more so as he felt that his honour was being diminished and the police force that he owed obedience to did not allow him to reply, as a police officer, to those attacks against his professional pride and his honour as a qualified criminal investigation police officer.»
(...)
«We do not see that the right of the book's author, the defendant, can be limited by a right to the reservation of intimacy that suffered voluntary limitations by their holders, the applicants.
In the same way, concerning the applicants' right to image and a good name: upon placing the case in the public square and giving it worldwide notoriety, the applicants opened all doors to all opinions, even those that are adversarial to them. »
(...)
«In a concise manner:
The book at stake in this process – "Maddie – the Truth of the Lie" – which was written by the defendant Dr. Gonçalo Amaral, has the main motivation of defending his personal and professional honour, as the author points out right away in the preface and throughout his text.
The contents of the book does not offend any of the applicants' fundamental rights.
The exercise of its writing and publication is included in the constitutional rights that are secured to everyone by the European Convention on Human Rights and by the Portuguese Republic’s Constitution, namely in its articles 37º and 38º.»
[Lisbon and Appeals Court, 14.10.2010
The Appellate Court Judges,
Francisco Bruto da Costa
Catarina Arelo Manso
António Valente]
Everyone is free to interpret the data available and to formulate their opinions as long as they are well funded on the evidence.
When a person is harassed and accused of wrong doing, when such has not happened, I believe it is legitimate to bring those that are guilty of such actions to Trial, to respond for it. If it was with me I would be putting an action against such persons, and not for money but for a prison sentence, just as happened with Leonor Cipriano that was convicted for lying in Court.
-
The effects of the book on the McCann family life and on the search for Madeleine are at stake in this trial.
-
No it doesn't. It says it is more likely than not that they were involved. That is a direct accusation and one that Amaral has to prove if the libel laws are the same as our ones. The word he uses is far stronger than suggesting the possibility exists. If that had been his intention, he could have said 'her parents were possibly involved in the concealment.' The word he chose does make the difference, but not in Amaral's favour. It is a direct accusation. The libel standard is the balance of probabilities not balance of possibilities. If it were on the balance possibilities, it would be nigh on impossible to lose a defamation action in the absence of the clearest evidence that the allegation was made was impossible.
The defamation laws are very different.
My understanding is that normally (unless there is a legal presumption to the contrary), in a civil case in Portugal, it is up to the plaintiff to provide proof that the rights that gave rise to the suit have been infringed and have caused damage, which then - somehow - has to be quantified.
It doesn't seem to matter what Amaral wrote or said (unless, presumably, it could be proven to have been done in bad faith), but whether whatever he has said or written infringed their rights and caused damage.
-
Bizarrely, it appears they could find in favour of the McCanns' claim but still award them very little as the court may also decide that being made arguido was as much, if not more, to blame for the damage and distress the McCanns suffered. It will be virtually impossible to separate out the percentage damage caused by the book as opposed to the other things therefore my feeling is that the judge will not be likely to find in favour of the McCanns. This is purely an opinion however and time will tell. Once we start hearing from the defence witnesses (later this week?) and see how they are treated by the judge it will give a better idea of how things are going.
-
So how does this trial differ from the previous decision? Can this trial find that Amaral did traduce their fundamental rights- to a good name, privacy, family life etc?
The ban injunction's purpose was just to eradicate the book, it didn't contemplate the damages caused by it though those damages were motivating the initiative. This trial does.
-
If it is the case that the Portuguese Legal system has already decided that the book has not damaged the McCann's Fundamental rights, why is a court currently holding a hearing to decide whether their fundamental rights have been damaged? It would be a strange legal system that allowed a lower court to hear a case that had already been decided in a higher court. I can only conclude that the previous findings of the higher court are legally limited or constrained in some way.
If you are taking a walk on a street and a street lamp falls on you and breaks your skull I assume you would require compensation for damages suffered, although you could not appoint a guilty person, but a damaging event, an entity would have to be responsible. What is being tried in Lisbon is the same: the publication of a book, a DVD and the edition of a documentary, allegedly caused harm/damage to the claimants.
-
The defamation laws are very different.
My understanding is that normally (unless there is a legal presumption to the contrary), in a civil case in Portugal, it is up to the plaintiff to provide proof that the rights that gave rise to the suit have been infringed and have caused damage, which then - somehow - has to be quantified.
It doesn't seem to matter what Amaral wrote or said (unless, presumably, it could be proven to have been done in bad faith), but whether whatever he has said or written infringed their rights and caused damage.
You are nearly there.
The defamation law to provide compensation obligates that the crime of defamation was committed. In this case, as by the previous Trial, there is no defamation.
Now, what is requested is the compensation for damages suffered, so what has to be proved is that the claimants suffered objectively any of the damages they claim - that's why it is up to them to prove, qualitatively and quantitatively, such damages.
-
You are nearly there.
The defamation law to provide compensation obligates that the crime of defamation was committed. In this case, as by the previous Trial, there is no defamation.
Now, what is requested is the compensation for damages suffered, so what has to be proved is that the claimants suffered objectively any of the damages they claim - that's why it is up to them to prove, qualitatively and quantitatively, such damages.
I'm not sure what you mean by "crime" as this is a civil case.
It does seem a bit odd, though.
I could accuse you (obviously invented) of breeding and eating newborn kittens and puppies for breakfast because, for some reason, I'd been led to this conclusion.
What would your defence be against this appalling accusation?
-
"Crime" is a generic word for any serious infraction that Law sanctions.
-
I'm not sure what you mean by "crime" as this is a civil case.
It does seem a bit odd, though.
I could accuse you (obviously invented) of breeding and eating newborn kittens and puppies for breakfast because, for some reason, I'd been led to this conclusion.
What would your defence be against this appalling accusation?
In Portugal, "defamation" is a crime - Penal Code, artº 180º
«1- Quem, dirigindo-se a terceiro, imputar a outra pessoa, mesmo sob a forma de suspeita, um facto, ou formular sobre ela um juízo, ofensivos da sua honra ou consideração, ou reproduzir uma tal imputação ou juízo, é punido com pena de prisão até 6 meses ou com pena de multa até 240 dias.
1.Who, addressing a third, impute to another person, even in the form of suspicion, a fact, or makes a judgment about them, offending their honor or consideration, or reproduce such an imputation or judgment, is punishable with imprisonment for up to six months or a fine of up to 240 days.]
2- A conduta não é punível quando:
a) A imputação for feita para realizar interesses legítimos; e
b) O agente provar a verdade da mesma imputação ou tiver tido fundamento sério para, em boa fé, a reputar verdadeira.
[2. Such conduct is not punishable when:
a) the imputation is made to prove legitimate interests; and
b) The agent proves the truthfulness of such imputation or if he/she has a serious fundament to, in good faith, repute such as truthful.]
3- Sem prejuízo do disposto nas alíneas b), c) e d) do n.º 2 do artigo 31.º deste Código, o disposto no número anterior não se aplica quando se tratar da imputação de facto relativo à intimidade da vida privada e familiar.
[3. Without prejudice of b), c) and d) in the article 31º, nº 2* of this Code, the disposition in the revious number does not apply when there is an imputation of fact to intimacy of the family and private life.]
4- A boa fé referida na alínea b) do n.º 2 exclui-se quando o agente não tiver cumprido o dever de informação, que as circunstâncias do caso impunham, sobre a verdade da imputação.
[4. The good faith referred in b) of nº 2 is excluded when the agent did not accomplish the duty of information, that the circumstances of the case obligated, about the truth of the imputation] »
*NOTE: artº31º - causes precluding wrongfulness and guilt
2- Namely it is not illicit the act committed:
a) in self defense;
b) within the exercise of a right;
c) in the fulfillment of a duty imposed by law or by a legitimate authority order;
d) with the consent of the holder of the aggrieved interest
I hope I could contribute to clarify a little bit.
Number 1 above: "honor and consideration" about the person refers to the Constitutional Fundamental Rights of Personality.
That is what was on the basis for the banning of the book.
As we saw, such banning was dismissed because it was understood that such rights had not been harmed.
Now what we have is a request for compensation of alleged damages, just like a person suffering from a car accident would demand.
-
In Portugal, "defamation" is a crime - Penal Code, artº 180º
«1- Quem, dirigindo-se a terceiro, imputar a outra pessoa, mesmo sob a forma de suspeita, um facto, ou formular sobre ela um juízo, ofensivos da sua honra ou consideração, ou reproduzir uma tal imputação ou juízo, é punido com pena de prisão até 6 meses ou com pena de multa até 240 dias.
1.Who, addressing a third, impute to another person, even in the form of suspicion, a fact, or makes a judgment about it, offending their honor or consideration, or reproduce such an imputation or judgment, is punishable with imprisonment for up to six months or a fine of up to 240 days.]
2- A conduta não é punível quando:
a) A imputação for feita para realizar interesses legítimos; e
b) O agente provar a verdade da mesma imputação ou tiver tido fundamento sério para, em boa fé, a reputar verdadeira.
[2. Such conduct is not punishable when:
a) the imputation is made to prove legitimate interests; and
b) The agent proves the truthfulness of such imputation or if he/she has a serious fundament to, in good faith, repute such as truthful.]
3- Sem prejuízo do disposto nas alíneas b), c) e d) do n.º 2 do artigo 31.º deste Código, o disposto no número anterior não se aplica quando se tratar da imputação de facto relativo à intimidade da vida privada e familiar.
[3. Without prejudice of b), c) and d) in the article 31º, nº 2* of this Code, the disposition in the revious number does not apply when there is an imputation of fact to intimacy of the family and private life.]
4- A boa fé referida na alínea b) do n.º 2 exclui-se quando o agente não tiver cumprido o dever de informação, que as circunstâncias do caso impunham, sobre a verdade da imputação.
[4. The good faith referred in b) of nº 2 is excluded when the agent did not accomplish the duty of information, that the circumstances of the case obligated, about the truth of the imputation] »
*NOTE: artº31º - causes precluding wrongfulness and guilt
2- Namely it is not illicit the act committed:
a) in self defense;
b) within the exercise of a right;
c) in the fulfillment of a duty imposed by law or by a legitimate authority order;
d) with the consent of the holder of the aggrieved interest
I hope I can contribute to clarify a little bit.
Thanks for that Luz. Is the definition of defamation in the penal code what will be taken into account in a civil suit? The potential sanctions and burden of proof differ - but is that all?
-
Carana, what this Civil Suit is about is the damages suffered: namely to the search for Madeleine and the well being of Mr. & Mrs. McCann, and the twins.
...in my understanding, of course (I am not a lawyer).
-
Carana, what this Civil Suit is about is the damages suffered: namely to the search for Madeleine and the well being of Mr. & Mrs. McCann, and the twins.
...in my understanding, of course (I am not a lawyer).
Thanks. I'm aware of that.
But defamation cases in Portugal can be brought as either criminal or civil. My question is whether the legal bases are the same.
ETA: The injunction was an interim measure pending the main civil case, wasn't it?
-
That's what I thought Red 8)-))) It was definitely thought provoking.
Who concealed the little boy's body ? Very recently a little girl, 4yrs old, was found hanged out of the same practice (hypoxiphily), but I don't think she was copycatting.
-
Thanks. I'm aware of that.
But defamation cases in Portugal can be brought as either criminal or civil. My question is whether the legal bases are the same.
ETA: The injunction was an interim measure pending the main civil case, wasn't it?
Yes. The providência cautelar is an emergency measure in order to stop a potentially harmful process as quick as possible (in this case the selling of the book) and waiting for a judgement on the main matter. Many times there's an agreement that avoids the main civil case which the injunction is only part of.
In France the decisions made through this procedure can be opposed by the court in charge of the main case, this court having to contemplate all the issues related to the "providência cautelar". But I don't know how it functions in Portugal.
-
Yes. The providência cautelar is an emergency measure in order to stop a potentially harmful process as quick as possible (in this case the selling of the book) and waiting for a judgement on the main matter. Many times there's an agreement that avoids the main civil case which the injunction is only part of.
In France the decisions made through this procedure can be opposed by the court in charge of the main case, this court having to contemplate all the issues related to the "providência cautelar". But I don't know how it functions in Portugal.
If I am not wrong, and beware that I am not a lawyer, to rule in favour of an injunction you have to consider that the object is within a criminal law, in this case of defamation (harming the good name and intimacy of the applicants). The first Trial considered that in fact the book was defaming and maintained the previous injunction, but after the Appeals to 2 other Courts it was found that the book was not defaming and the injunction was lifted.
It may be confusing because in both cases the actions were civil. But in the first it was imperative to determine a criminal action (the publication of the book, DVD and documentary, as defamatory) in order to suppress their existence for the public. In this second action it is not necessary to prove the existence of a crime, but only the existence of damage.
-
Who concealed the little boy's body ? Very recently a little girl, 4yrs old, was found hanged out of the same practice (hypoxiphily), but I don't think she was copycatting.
The boy's father Anne, but who else also knew is left for viewers to decide. It's a very well made drama.
-
The boy's father Anne, but who else also knew is left for viewers to decide. It's a very well made drama.
Thank you, Lyall. Why did the father conceal ? And he left the mother ignoring ? Did he think his son killed himself ? I'm asking because in real life it happens (rarely but it does) very young children found hanged (through fainting),are considered as having killed themselves, leaving the parents completely in the dark and in never-ending despair.