IN PURSUIT OF DEFAME AND FORTUNE by Dr Martin Roberts - mccannfiles.com

EXCLUSIVE to mccannfiles.com

By Dr Martin Roberts
18 September 2013
















http://www.mccannfiles.com/id232.html

Many many thanks to mccannfiles.

By Dr Martin Roberts
18 September 2013


IN PURSUIT OF DEFAME AND FORTUNE

In the heady days of celebrity alliances, what the McCanns may once have considered a case of 'last man standing' appears now to be rather more one of 'Last to leave please turn out the lights'; a tragedy on the verge of descending into farce. (We have been here before, and in no uncertain terms. See: Cloud Cuckoo Land, McCannfiles 20.1.2010). Whilst we, the audience, can see the absurdities for what they are, the protagonists, at least those largely responsible for the choreography, seem oblivious to their situation, like a pantomime principal inexplicably dependent on calls off-stage of 'Look behind you!'

It would be surprising indeed if Goncalo Amaral's legal team did not have a full quiver of arrows, so to speak, hence nothing said here is likely to be novel in any way. Nonetheless, even familiar facts can be of renewed interest given a different interpretive context. Facts such as were put before us by a McCann supporter three years ago:

''The Truth of the Lie' by Amaral, has sold several million copies to date, netting him somewhere in the region of 1.2 million euros in royalties.'

And why ought we to acknowledge that statement as fact? Because the McCanns are seeking damages of 1.2 million euros, that's why. Or are we to suppose that they settled on that figure simply because they liked the sound of the number? Eureka! The extent of the McCanns' suffering is exactly equal to Goncalo Amaral's financial ruin – malevolent design or extraordinary coincidence? Well, like Andrew Wiles' assault on Fermat's Last Theorem, the answer to that one is arrived at by a surprisingly circuitous route.

On her way into the Lisbon court, Isabel Duarte was asked by a journalist exactly what compensation the McCanns were seeking. 'Money' came the obvious answer. And when the inevitable supplementary question followed, she duly elaborated with a simple Maths problem: '250 thousand euros for each of the persons involved, they are five.' (Hands up those who wouldn't want either Carol Vorderman or Rachel Riley to report from Lisbon, instead of Martin Brunt!).

Anyway, we have 5 x 250 (thousand) equals 1,250,000 (euros), which appears to tally with the 'fact' fed us all that time ago. Except that Goncalo Amaral is not the only defendant facing the charges. There are four parties being held to account, each of whom is destined to finance a quarter of the bill for damages should the decision go against them.

Part B of the Maths problem set by Isabel Duarte therefore is to divide 1,250,000 by 4. The result is 312,500. 'Good for Goncalo. He gets to keep a lot of change even if he loses then!' Oh no he doesn't. Underneath 'stone two' there lurks a statement published in The Sun:

'But by the time Amaral's 2008 book came out they had been cleared. It was never published in the UK but sold 140,000 copies and is estimated to have netted the former detective £320,000.'

Well, well, well. So Gonacalo Amaral did not become a euro-millionaire from his book sales after all. Never mind. The McCanns still calculated to take him for virtually every penny he did earn from the exercise. If we 'do the math' according to Duarte's initial equation, it quickly becomes apparent that a per capita claim of 250k is almost exactly the ratio required for Amaral's obligation to fall within his estimated earnings (and therefore offer some guarantee of being met). Cynical or what?

1.2 million euros worth of libel, in total, it is then, by the time the various 'injuries' are accounted for. Reason enough to travel to Portugal and no mistake. As Kate McCann was reported to have explained (in the Express and elsewhere):

"I'm here to stop the damage that has been caused and is still being caused directly and indirectly to the search for our daughter and stop the suffering that has been caused to our family by the theories in Goncalo Amaral's book and the documentary."

Except her objective, as actually declared, was rather different – not exactly putting a stop to the suffering caused by an author's theories by refuting them, but merely challenging them:

"I'm here today for Madeleine and obviously I strongly hope for justice. I'm here to stop the damage that has been caused, and is still being caused, both directly and indirectly to the search for our daughter, and to stop the... the d... the suffering that's been caused to our family, and will carry on being caused to our family, if the theories of Goncalo Amaral and his book and documentary go unchallenged."

Whereas a challenge can be mounted by anyone, on any grounds and however spurious, refutation necessarily requires that the contestant demonstrate a solid proof. Leaving certain presumptions aside, in order to establish, once and for all, that they were not party to a concealment of any kind, the McCanns would have to prove their daughter Madeleine was abducted; something they have been unable to do in the six years since she disappeared, the Tanner sighting notwithstanding (see: Not A Leg To Stand On, McCannfiles 10.9.13). The current legal dispute is taking place on Portuguese soil don't forget, where the onus is upon the plaintiff to prove their point, rather than the accused to defend theirs.

Challenging theories is not what libel trials are about in any case.

Shouldn't the McCanns therefore be concerning themselves with more fundamental issues, pertaining to what, specifically, was said about them by Goncalo Amaral in his book 'A Verdade Da Mentira'? In accusing their adversarial author of libel, the litigants in this case should be intent on establishing, beyond question, that their personal and/or professional reputations have been damaged by him, not some vague 'search', conducted in Portugal or elsewhere by employees of the McCanns; operatives who work to contract, not according to the theoretical whims of outsiders. But again, they have to prove it. All the defendant has to do is convince the court of his own belief in the veracity of any contested claim. There is a precedent for that also. And If Goncalo Amaral's published statements were, or are, libellous, then they became so at the point of publication, not a year later once the sales had been racked up. But then they might not have been worth quite so much and concomitantly not worth pursuing.

The McCanns would have known all this before ever Kate boarded the plane to Portugal. That is why they tried to finesse Amaral with the offer of a 'settlement' (it worked with the Express after all) and why, with the Portuguese version of 'See you in court!' ringing in their ears, they have had to recruit a motley crew of mercenaries to testify on their behalf, the witnesses so far having previously been employed by the McCanns in some capacity. That makes their testimonies not only hearsay but prejudiced hearsay at that. Nevertheless, opening themselves up to cross-examination inside a court of law is definitely not on the McCann agenda (their discomfort during the Leveson Inquiry was plain enough, and it wasn't even their gig!).

Libel is absolute, not relative, whichever side of the ocean one is on. The Oscar Wilde case affords us a neat precedent in that regard. Unjustified derogatory remarks are not rendered more or less libellous depending upon the number of persons who might read them. It has nothing whatever to do with whether or not a theory, if uncontested, might adversely influence the future behaviour of people toward third parties, however closely related. We do not, as a rule, 'visit the sins of the father upon the son' (or daughter), and unquestionably the best way to challenge the theories of Goncalo Amaral, should they require it, is to discover Madeleine McCann alive.

Surely Kate would not take the view that the McCanns alone are able to mount such a challenge, thereby denying others the opportunity of doing so? At issue of course is whether others genuinely do have such an opportunity. Perhaps, should Goncalo Amaral be vindicated, we might then proceed to find out. Unless of course the overseas arm of 'Operation Grange' comes up with a challenge of its own in the meantime.

"they have had to recruit a motley crew of mercenaries to testify on their behalf, the witnesses so far having previously been employed by the McCanns in some capacity."

"That makes their testimonies not only HEARSAY but PREDJUDICED HEARSAY at that."
_____________________________________________

I said that before the motley crew even set a gladiator sandaled foot in Portugal for this court case!

" Shouldn't the McCanns therefore be concerning themselves with more fundamental issues, pertaining to what, specifically, was said about them by Goncalo Amaral in his book 'A Verdade Da Mentira'? In accusing their adversarial author of libel, the litigants in this case should be intent on establishing, beyond question, that their personal and/or professional reputations have been damaged by him "

 Yes, they should, but they can't, because there is no way of establishing this as a fact.


 There is on record evidence of very successful fundraising by the couple, as recent as this year, when both participated in sporting events for charity.
 If their reputations had been damaged by GA's book as claimed, there would not have been this level of support for their charity work.
 
 More evidence that the book is either not widely read or if widely read online, has not influenced public opinion in the way that is claimed.

Dr Martin Roberts  

 

EXCLUSIVE to mccannfiles.com

By Dr Martin Roberts
19 September 2013


ON THE USE OF ENGLISH

To the ear of a non-speaker the romance languages can appear almost song-like. That mongrel tongue known as English on the other hand exhibits an altogether different peculiarity. Having discarded the demands of gender, adjectival agreement, and the rest of that latinate bag of tricks which virtually guarantee an accurate understanding of the written word, English strips down to the bare essentials, risking all on the logical determinacy of its semantics and associated capacity to overcome ambiguity. In simple terms, 'what you say is what you get'.

So what do we gather from what the McCanns have said?

Madeleine McCann is dead

Kate McCann has said so (to Sara Antunes de Oliveira, SIC, 9 March, 2010):

"We're not going to sit here and lie and be totally naïve and say she's one hundred per cent alive."

Less than 100% alive equals dead. A lie is a deliberate contradiction of a known truth, not a speculation.

On the strength of the available evidence Gerry McCann also believes this to be the case (to Nicky Campbell, Radio Five Live Breakfast, 1 May, 2008):

"We have contact with the Foreign Office, errm... from predominantly a consular basis. We do put requests in, that we do want to get as much information as possible and, I think, what we've asked, and will ask repeatedly, is: 'What evidence does anyone have to suggest that Madeleine is dead?' Because we know of no evidence to suggest otherwise and we would like a public acknowledgement of that."

It wasn't an accident

During a 'Seven on Sunday' broadcast in Australia, two years ago now, Gerry McCann was asked: "Did you kill your daughter?" To which he replied: "No. That's an emphatic 'no.'"

English offers a speaker various ways to emphasise a statement: Tone of voice, qualifiers, repetition – they each have their place, depending upon the context in which they are deployed. This answer of Gerry McCann's, so simple on the face of it, is disproportionately subtle in significance.

If the answer to a question is genuinely 'no' then, if the speaker considers it appropriate to reinforce the negation, all they have to do is to say 'no' emphatically. Describing the word subsequently, as being emphatic or anything else, does not accomplish that objective (assuming of course that was the objective).

Hence Gerry McCann's 'emphatic denial' that he killed his daughter (the question having been put to him rather than his wife) is, in actuality, not emphatic at all, just a monosyllabic rebuff.

Later, in concluding his over-elaborate answer he makes the following remark:

"An' if she died when we were in the apartment or fell injured, why would we... why would we cover that up?"

If we invert this observation and view it as a statement, rather than a question, Gerry McCann is implying that they would not have covered up either an injury to their daughter or Madeleine's death in their presence. There is no contingency expressed which would cover her death in their absence. Should it transpire that Madeleine McCann was not abducted however, covering up a death is exactly what the McCanns will have done. And if covering up a death due to accidental injury is deemed to have been unnecessary, then the fact of a cover up would signify that the death was not accidental.

Another of Gerry McCann's sound bites, from elsewhere in the broadcast media universe, speaks more pointedly to the same issue:

"There's been an evil crime committed here, a heinous crime...it's just so important to concentrate on that. We've got to live with ourselves for that misjudgement, but really the focus should be on that person who is out there."

Several contiguous statements refer to 'an evil crime', 'a heinous crime', 'misjudgement' and 'that person out there.' In order to focus more clearly on the real meaning of this utterance we can profitably jettison the closing remark, which results in the following:

"There's been an evil crime committed here, a heinous crime...it's just so important to concentrate on that. We've got to live with ourselves for that misjudgement."

Suddenly we begin to see the true nature of the confession. Taking concentration on 'that', i.e., the evil, heinous crime as a given, we may reduce the statement further, making it clearer still:

"There's been an evil crime committed here, a heinous crime. We've got to live with ourselves for that misjudgement."

Readers of Ripley's 'Believe It Or Not' may already have discovered for themselves how it is possible to construct a sentence which includes seven consecutive instances of the word 'that'. Here we began with three (that crime, that misjudgement, that person) and have since reduced the number to one (a demonstrative adjective), the referent for which is the same as for the intervening pronoun. In simple terms what 'that misjudgement' and 'that' as an object upon which to concentrate each have in common is their relationship to the aforementioned 'evil, heinous crime'. In a nutshell the McCanns have to live with themselves for a misjudgement, which happens to have been a crime, and not just any old crime either, but an evil, heinous one.

Would one normally view leaving a child indoors unattended as an evil or heinous act?