The Complete Mystery of Madeleine McCann™
Hi,

A very warm welcome to The Complete Mystery of Madeleine McCann™ forum.

Please log in, or register to view all the forums, then settle in and start chatting with us!

Enjoy your day,

Jill Havern
Forum owner

McCanns v Amaral trial is NOT LIBEL!

Page 6 of 8 Previous  1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8  Next

View previous topic View next topic Go down

Re: McCanns v Amaral trial is NOT LIBEL!

Post by Joss on 22.05.15 14:07

@Richard IV wrote:Not sure where OxfordBloo got this from

""Retired criminal investigation officers ... retain special rights, and as holders of an ID card for recognition of its quality and rights enjoyed [paragraphs 1 and and 2 of article 149 of the Organic Law of the Judicial Police and Ordinance No. 96/2002 31 January]."

 The Retirement Statute [approved by Decree-Law 498/72 of 9 December] establishes, from its original wording, the respective artº 74, paragraph 1, "the retired, and holder right to retirement pension, remains bound to the civil service, keeping the titles and the category of the position he held and the rights and duties that do not depend on active employment."


But if legit, it seems GA was still bound under the police retirement law if he continued to receive a pension from them.  
And how then could the higher court have determined he was within his rights to write his book on the investigation and unban it?

Joss

Posts : 1898
Reputation : 146
Join date : 2011-09-19

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: McCanns v Amaral trial is NOT LIBEL!

Post by OxfordBloo on 22.05.15 14:08

@Joss wrote:
@OxfordBloo wrote:They are not the Judge's opinion but direct quotes from Portuguese laws as passed by their legislature.
Where on the internet are these laws from Portugal stated on any legal websites, apart from what the judge said?
The laws that are in question here are the ones you quote the judge determined that GA was not allowed to state his opinions from the investigation because of his being an ex PJ officer, and sworn to some type of secrecy, so a big no no for him to have written his book. Also that according to what you cite the judge states, that GA accused the McC's of being guilty of certain crimes in the case of their missing child, and should of upheld  that the McC's were innocent until proven guilty. Apart from that i think its all pretty straightforward.
I think i understand the gist of your posts?
The laws are quoted with their full reference to the Portuguese legal code.

Are you suggesting the judge was incorrect in her references to Portuguese law which could be checked by reference to the Portuguese statutes?

OxfordBloo

Posts : 68
Reputation : 0
Join date : 2015-05-01

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: McCanns v Amaral trial is NOT LIBEL!

Post by BlueBag on 22.05.15 14:10

Dear Oxfordbloo,

Where are you getting these perfect translations of Portuguese law from?

And did you come here to convince us that Amaral doesn't have a chance?

BlueBag

Posts : 3416
Reputation : 1267
Join date : 2014-06-06

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: McCanns v Amaral trial is NOT LIBEL!

Post by OxfordBloo on 22.05.15 14:11

@Joss wrote:
@Richard IV wrote:Not sure where OxfordBloo got this from

""Retired criminal investigation officers ... retain special rights, and as holders of an ID card for recognition of its quality and rights enjoyed [paragraphs 1 and and 2 of article 149 of the Organic Law of the Judicial Police and Ordinance No. 96/2002 31 January]."

 The Retirement Statute [approved by Decree-Law 498/72 of 9 December] establishes, from its original wording, the respective artº 74, paragraph 1, "the retired, and holder right to retirement pension, remains bound to the civil service, keeping the titles and the category of the position he held and the rights and duties that do not depend on active employment."


But if legit, it seems GA was still bound under the police retirement law if he continued to receive a pension from them.  
And how then could the higher court have determined he was within his rights to write his book on the investigation and unban it?
The higher court fond that publishing the book was legal and not libel.

The second judgement found in common terms that

1/ Amaral "stole" the information, and
2/ Called the McCann guilty.

These two actions (nothing to do with the non-libellous status of the book) harmed the McCanns.

OxfordBloo

Posts : 68
Reputation : 0
Join date : 2015-05-01

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: McCanns v Amaral trial is NOT LIBEL!

Post by BlueBag on 22.05.15 14:13

@OxfordBloo wrote:2/ Called the McCann guilty.
Where?

He gave an opinion that the evidence points to death and concealment of a body.

Which it does.

The published files say the same.

BlueBag

Posts : 3416
Reputation : 1267
Join date : 2014-06-06

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: McCanns v Amaral trial is NOT LIBEL!

Post by OxfordBloo on 22.05.15 14:22

@BlueBag wrote:Dear Oxfordbloo,

Where are you getting these perfect translations of Portuguese law from?

And did you come here to convince us that Amaral doesn't have a chance?
They are translated from the original, but are very close to Anne Guedes version on the McCann files. You can check this on pages 41and 42 at

http://www.gerrymccannsblogs.co.uk/v01.htm

OxfordBloo

Posts : 68
Reputation : 0
Join date : 2015-05-01

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: McCanns v Amaral trial is NOT LIBEL!

Post by OxfordBloo on 22.05.15 14:24

@BlueBag wrote:
@OxfordBloo wrote:2/ Called the McCann guilty.
Where?

He gave an opinion that the evidence points to death and concealment of a body.

Which it does.

The published files say the same.
The judgement points out where and when he definitely stated that the McCann were said to be guilty of concealment.

You sill find it here:
http://www.gerrymccannsblogs.co.uk/v01.htm

OxfordBloo

Posts : 68
Reputation : 0
Join date : 2015-05-01

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: McCanns v Amaral trial is NOT LIBEL!

Post by BlueBag on 22.05.15 14:25

Did Amaral declare the McCanns "guilty"?

From the end of his book:


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.

Someone is exaggerating.

All this can be found in the public files.

BlueBag

Posts : 3416
Reputation : 1267
Join date : 2014-06-06

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: McCanns v Amaral trial is NOT LIBEL!

Post by BlueBag on 22.05.15 14:29

So.. Oxfordbloo... can you provide us with the specifics of where the Judge said Amaral said the McCanns were guilty?

Because all I see is Amaral expressing an opinion about likely possibilities.

Just like in the public files.

BlueBag

Posts : 3416
Reputation : 1267
Join date : 2014-06-06

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: McCanns v Amaral trial is NOT LIBEL!

Post by Joss on 22.05.15 14:29

@OxfordBloo wrote:
@Joss wrote:
@OxfordBloo wrote:They are not the Judge's opinion but direct quotes from Portuguese laws as passed by their legislature.
Where on the internet are these laws from Portugal stated on any legal websites, apart from what the judge said?
The laws that are in question here are the ones you quote the judge determined that GA was not allowed to state his opinions from the investigation because of his being an ex PJ officer, and sworn to some type of secrecy, so a big no no for him to have written his book. Also that according to what you cite the judge states, that GA accused the McC's of being guilty of certain crimes in the case of their missing child, and should of upheld  that the McC's were innocent until proven guilty. Apart from that i think its all pretty straightforward.
I think i understand the gist of your posts?
The laws are quoted with their full reference to the Portuguese legal code.

Are you suggesting the judge was incorrect in her references to Portuguese law which could be checked by reference to the Portuguese statutes?
I guess i should of asked you where on the internet could i find the Portugese Legal Code? Is there a link? TIA.
I don't know anything about the judge.

____________________

Joss

Posts : 1898
Reputation : 146
Join date : 2011-09-19

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: McCanns v Amaral trial is NOT LIBEL!

Post by Joss on 22.05.15 14:33

@BlueBag wrote:Did Amaral declare the McCanns "guilty"?

From the end of his book:


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.

Someone is exaggerating.

All this can be found in the public files.
Thanks BB, you beat me to it. I was about to ask where GA ever declare the McCann's of being guilty? Not to my knowledge, he didn't.

Joss

Posts : 1898
Reputation : 146
Join date : 2011-09-19

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: McCanns v Amaral trial is NOT LIBEL!

Post by OxfordBloo on 22.05.15 14:34

@BlueBag wrote:Did Amaral declare the McCanns "guilty"?

From the end of his book:


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.

Someone is exaggerating.

All this can be found in the public files.
Which proves the point.

Amaral said that the McCanns were guilty of negligence in the care of children - an offence under Portuguese Law. Not only were they not convicted but the AG stated that there was no evidence that neglect had occurred.

Additionally, saying that the McCanns 'probably' were involved in another criminal offence- concealing a death.

The judgement contains that very list as proof that Amaral did say that the McCanns were not innocent of those criminal offences.

I was about to quote that section from the translation but you have saved me the bother.

OxfordBloo

Posts : 68
Reputation : 0
Join date : 2015-05-01

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: McCanns v Amaral trial is NOT LIBEL!

Post by TheTruthWillOut on 22.05.15 14:38

Has GA officially submitted an appeal yet? If not, how long does he have to apply?

TheTruthWillOut

Posts : 733
Reputation : 16
Join date : 2011-09-26

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: McCanns v Amaral trial is NOT LIBEL!

Post by OxfordBloo on 22.05.15 14:39

Right, I am done for the time being.

The judgement quotes Portuguese Law that restricts police and ex police in their statements about cases.

The judge found that Amaral's behaviour transgressed that law.

The judge found that such transgressions harmed the McCann.

It was not a question of libel.

The judgement is appealable.

We shall eventually know the outcome.

OxfordBloo

Posts : 68
Reputation : 0
Join date : 2015-05-01

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: McCanns v Amaral trial is NOT LIBEL!

Post by OxfordBloo on 22.05.15 14:40

@TheTruthWillOut wrote:Has GA officially submitted an appeal yet? If not, how long does he have to apply?
IIRC it was forty days, so another few weeks.

OxfordBloo

Posts : 68
Reputation : 0
Join date : 2015-05-01

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: McCanns v Amaral trial is NOT LIBEL!

Post by Joss on 22.05.15 14:41

@TheTruthWillOut wrote:Has GA officially submitted an appeal yet? If not, how long does he have to apply?
Not sure, i have not seen any statement made by Goncalo Amaral in that regard, only that he will appeal, and i think that it could take quite some time.

____________________

Joss

Posts : 1898
Reputation : 146
Join date : 2011-09-19

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: McCanns v Amaral trial is NOT LIBEL!

Post by BlueBag on 22.05.15 14:42

Yes Oxfordbloo.. your mission is acomplished.

Anyway...

This was in the judgement regards retirement:


Even so the statements, when admissible, 
(…) are subjects to prior authorisation provided by the national director or the national deputy directors, at risk of disciplinary proceedings, maintaining the eventual criminal liability [art 12-3]. ( 30 ) The duty of reserve is a functional requirement common to magistrates and organs of criminal police. As an example, in the case of the magistrates of the Public Ministry, the ordinary law postulates that this duty will remain after retirement, establishing the article 148-7 of the Statute that retired judges must respect the reserve required by their condition.

Yes retired JUDGES.

I bet she couldn't find anything about retired police officiers.

Edit..

At least anything that removes their right to freedom of expression and opinion.

BlueBag

Posts : 3416
Reputation : 1267
Join date : 2014-06-06

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: McCanns v Amaral trial is NOT LIBEL!

Post by Rogue-a-Tory on 22.05.15 14:47

@OxfordBloo wrote:
@BlueBag wrote:Did Amaral declare the McCanns "guilty"?

From the end of his book:


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.

Someone is exaggerating.

All this can be found in the public files.
Which proves the point.

Amaral said that the McCanns were guilty of negligence in the care of children - an offence under Portuguese Law. Not only were they not convicted but the AG stated that there was no evidence that neglect had occurred.

Additionally, saying that the McCanns 'probably' were involved in another criminal offence- concealing a death.

The judgement contains that very list as proof that Amaral did say that the McCanns were not innocent of those criminal offences.

I was about to quote that section from the translation but you have saved me the bother.
But you said that Amaral stated the McCann's were guilty of concealment. Which he didn't.

Please stop hopping around on a pinhead.

Rogue-a-Tory

Posts : 401
Reputation : 245
Join date : 2014-09-10

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: McCanns v Amaral trial is NOT LIBEL!

Post by BlueBag on 22.05.15 14:50

It's also the judge who is dancing around on a pinhead.

She has found the requirement to reserve in law for retired Judges... and extended that to all public figures in a slight of hand.

BlueBag

Posts : 3416
Reputation : 1267
Join date : 2014-06-06

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: McCanns v Amaral trial is NOT LIBEL!

Post by OxfordBloo on 22.05.15 14:51

@BlueBag wrote:Yes Oxfordbloo.. your mission is acomplished.

Anyway...

This was in the judgement regards retirement:


Even so the statements, when admissible, 
(…) are subjects to prior authorisation provided by the national director or the national deputy directors, at risk of disciplinary proceedings, maintaining the eventual criminal liability [art 12-3]. ( 30 ) The duty of reserve is a functional requirement common to magistrates and organs of criminal police. As an example, in the case of the magistrates of the Public Ministry, the ordinary law postulates that this duty will remain after retirement, establishing the article 148-7 of the Statute that retired judges must respect the reserve required by their condition.

Yes retired JUDGES.

I bet she couldn't find anything about retired police officiers.

Edit..

At least anything that removes their right to freedom of expression and opinion.
You conveniently overlook the following from the judgement:

""Retired criminal investigation officers ... retain special rights, and as holders of an ID card for recognition of its quality and rights enjoyed [paragraphs 1 and and 2 of article 149 of the Organic Law of the Judicial Police and Ordinance No. 96/2002 31 January]."

 The Retirement Statute [approved by Decree-Law 498/72 of 9 December] establishes, from its original wording, the respective artº 74, paragraph 1, "the retired, and holder right to retirement pension, remains bound to the civil service, keeping the titles and the category of the position he held and the rights and duties that do not depend on active employment."

OxfordBloo

Posts : 68
Reputation : 0
Join date : 2015-05-01

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: McCanns v Amaral trial is NOT LIBEL!

Post by OxfordBloo on 22.05.15 14:52

@BlueBag wrote:It's also the judge who is dancing around on a pinhead.

She has found the requirement to reserve in law for retired Judges... and extended that to all public figures in a slight of hand.
No:

""Retired criminal investigation officers ... retain special rights, and as holders of an ID card for recognition of its quality and rights enjoyed [paragraphs 1 and and 2 of article 149 of the Organic Law of the Judicial Police and Ordinance No. 96/2002 31 January]."

 The Retirement Statute [approved by Decree-Law 498/72 of 9 December] establishes, from its original wording, the respective artº 74, paragraph 1, "the retired, and holder right to retirement pension, remains bound to the civil service, keeping the titles and the category of the position he held and the rights and duties that do not depend on active employment."

OxfordBloo

Posts : 68
Reputation : 0
Join date : 2015-05-01

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: McCanns v Amaral trial is NOT LIBEL!

Post by Joss on 22.05.15 14:55

@OxfordBloo wrote:
@BlueBag wrote:Yes Oxfordbloo.. your mission is acomplished.

Anyway...

This was in the judgement regards retirement:


Even so the statements, when admissible, 
(…) are subjects to prior authorisation provided by the national director or the national deputy directors, at risk of disciplinary proceedings, maintaining the eventual criminal liability [art 12-3]. ( 30 ) The duty of reserve is a functional requirement common to magistrates and organs of criminal police. As an example, in the case of the magistrates of the Public Ministry, the ordinary law postulates that this duty will remain after retirement, establishing the article 148-7 of the Statute that retired judges must respect the reserve required by their condition.

Yes retired JUDGES.

I bet she couldn't find anything about retired police officiers.

Edit..

At least anything that removes their right to freedom of expression and opinion.
You conveniently overlook the following from the judgement:

""Retired criminal investigation officers ... retain special rights, and as holders of an ID card for recognition of its quality and rights enjoyed [paragraphs 1 and and 2 of article 149 of the Organic Law of the Judicial Police and Ordinance No. 96/2002 31 January]."

 The Retirement Statute [approved by Decree-Law 498/72 of 9 December] establishes, from its original wording, the respective artº 74, paragraph 1, "the retired, and holder right to retirement pension, remains bound to the civil service, keeping the titles and the category of the position he held and the rights and duties that do not depend on active employment."
But he doesn't have anymore rights, the McCann's took them all from him a long time ago.

Joss

Posts : 1898
Reputation : 146
Join date : 2011-09-19

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: McCanns v Amaral trial is NOT LIBEL!

Post by BlueBag on 22.05.15 14:57

From the judgement regards retired Police officers, she quotes some previous edict:


There is even so a "bond to the civil service", which materialises in conserving the titles and the position of the function exercised and the rights and duties that are not dependent on activity status "(emphasis added). The same note concluded that "the retired remains subject to duties of private conduct translated in particular in the abstention of practice of facts integrators of crimes that have a relevant connection with the functions previously carried out and thus affect actually the functioning of the service or in a serious way the dignity and the prestige of the function or of the Administration 

That is not a removal of freedom of expression or opinion.

It's a duty to not adversely affect the functioning of the service in a serious way or affect prestige/dignity of the Administration.

Amaral hasn't done that.

But the judge has constructed a house of straw against Amaral.

BlueBag

Posts : 3416
Reputation : 1267
Join date : 2014-06-06

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: McCanns v Amaral trial is NOT LIBEL!

Post by Joss on 22.05.15 14:59

@BlueBag wrote:From the judgement regards retired Police officers, she quotes some previous edict:


There is even so a "bond to the civil service", which materialises in conserving the titles and the position of the function exercised and the rights and duties that are not dependent on activity status "(emphasis added). The same note concluded that "the retired remains subject to duties of private conduct translated in particular in the abstention of practice of facts integrators of crimes that have a relevant connection with the functions previously carried out and thus affect actually the functioning of the service or in a serious way the dignity and the prestige of the function or of the Administration 

That is not a removal of freedom of expression or opinion.

It's a duty to not adversely affect the functioning of the service in a serious way or affect prestige/dignity of the Administration.

Amaral hasn't done that.

But the judge has constructed a house of straw against Amaral.
Exactly.

Joss

Posts : 1898
Reputation : 146
Join date : 2011-09-19

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: McCanns v Amaral trial is NOT LIBEL!

Post by BlueBag on 22.05.15 14:59

@OxfordBloo wrote:
@BlueBag wrote:It's also the judge who is dancing around on a pinhead.

She has found the requirement to reserve in law for retired Judges... and extended that to all public figures in a slight of hand.
No:

""Retired criminal investigation officers ... retain special rights, and as holders of an ID card for recognition of its quality and rights enjoyed [paragraphs 1 and and 2 of article 149 of the Organic Law of the Judicial Police and Ordinance No. 96/2002 31 January]."

 The Retirement Statute [approved by Decree-Law 498/72 of 9 December] establishes, from its original wording, the respective artº 74, paragraph 1, "the retired, and holder right to retirement pension, remains bound to the civil service, keeping the titles and the category of the position he held and the rights and duties that do not depend on active employment."
Dancing on a pin.

There is no removal of the right to freedom of expression or opinion so long as the service is not adversely affected.

I notice Amaral hasn't been disciplined for anything by the service.

BlueBag

Posts : 3416
Reputation : 1267
Join date : 2014-06-06

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Page 6 of 8 Previous  1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8  Next

View previous topic View next topic Back to top


 
Permissions in this forum:
You cannot reply to topics in this forum