Interview with Dr Goncalo Amaral

[You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]

Of which this bit jumped out

Have you never considered suing the McCanns over the damages that they caused to your family?

Each thing in its own time, it won’t be only the McCanns, but their group of friends, and other people and entities that will be sued. There is an illicit action that was indeed performed, the neglect in guarding their children, which caused direct damages to many people, not only to myself, but for example to the Ocean Club workers, who were fired and saw their lives change, many of them unjustly passing from mere employees and heads of family to suspects in a criminal investigation, while they had nothing to do with the matter.

Come on GA.   Força ! !
The world is behind you.

I’ve posted it in full PeterMac as there are still people who are reluctant to click on links & it’s a worthy read:

15 May 2015
Nova Gente: Interview With Gonçalo Amaral
 
15^th May 2015
 

For the first time, Gonçalo Amaral speaks about the case that destroyed his career, his family and his health...
 
“My life is gone, I’m only alive due to my heart”
 
 
Condemned to pay 500 thousand euro to the parents of Maddie, the little English three-year-old girl that disappeared in Praia da Luz, in the Algarve, on the 3rd of May of 2007, the former inspector will fight until the last legal instance, because he is “a free man and citizen” with “the right to express opinions”.
 
What was your reaction when you found out that the verdict from the court was unfavourable to you in the defamation suit that the McCanns filed against you?
 
I found out about the verdict through a friend who called me telling me about the news on the radio. I immediately called my lawyer, but he hadn’t been notified and the verdict was not in the process. It’s sad, but my lawyer could only access the sentence, that afternoon, because a British journalist sent it to him by e-mail. There is no doubt that the couple’s lawyer has good connections at the court. My reaction was one of calm and a wish to read the full contents of the verdict as soon as it was available on the Citius website, which only happened the next day, but with the date of the previous day. Mysteries which the webs of justice weave.
 
Were you surprised?
 
I wasn’t surprised, it was one of the open possibilities, but after the decision about the matter of fact, which was favourable to me, I trusted that the verdict would come in the same direction.
 
Do you think there are errors in the process? Do you feel wronged?
 
Those are not mistakes, but value judgements and understandings that are contrary to mine and to that of many other jurists. As for feeling wronged… What do you think? I can only ask if those who, for more than five nights, left their three children, aged three and two, to their own devices in a house within an unknown space, subjecting them to a thousand dangers, while they were partying with friends – not to mention the amounts of alcohol that was ingested on those occasions -, still has the right to be compensated. They practiced a crime of exposing and abandoning defenceless children and they weren’t even accused of that fact. Looking at our criminal legislation, at the English child protection legislation and at cases that recently happened with British subjects in the Algarve, after drunken nights, all that I can say is that the McCann couple is primarily responsible for their daughter’s disappearance. She only disappeared because they neglected her guard and, as parents, they were obliged to it. It is a fact that they lost their daughter, but that doesn’t give them the right to sue anyone or to be compensated. They can’t escape their guilt, which is enough to rob them of their sleep, to provoke a lack of appetite and even rage, but against themselves and not against someone who only wrote down what happened during the first five months of the investigation, according to what is in the case files. If compensation takes place, all that I can do is warn you: be careful, there’s people who may turn this into a new business!
 
Don’t you feel revolted by this verdict?
 
I don’t feel revolt, but I do not conform to it, I still trust our country’s justice system, for which I have worked for over 25 years, and I still am a free citizen with all my rights. On the other hand, even the question that Maddie’s siblings, then aged two, may someday read my book and become traumatized doesn’t concern me. Those two children were also abandoned for over five nights in a row and surely they will understand that what is written there is the result of a criminal investigation.
 
There is a question that those two children will certainly ask when they grow up but that question will be directed at the parents: why were they abandoned, left to their own devices? Those children are free to think and to conclude that whatever happened to their daughter could have happened to one of them. The parents can only fear that their two children who did not disappear on that tragic night revolt against them.
 
The court says that you caused Maddie’s parents and siblings moral damages…
 
In my understanding, there are no damages that, objectively and factually, may have resulted from my writing. Which is to say, there is no causal nexus between the book or the documentary and any damages. On the other hand, what is spoken about, like the feelings of rage, it can hardly be considered a damage.
 
The couple demanded one million two hundred thousand euro. The court has sentenced you to pay 500 thousand euro – including interest since 2010 – over damages that were caused by the publication of the book Maddie: A Verdade da Mentira. Aren’t both the request and the damages awarded by the court exaggerated?
 
There is no defamation crime, I haven’t been tried over any crime, if at all I am being tried over an offence of opinion, something unthinkable 40 years after the revolution of April of 1974, which ended the [fascist] Estado Novo, censorship and all the means that oppressed Portuguese citizens from thinking, speaking and writing freely. On the other hand, what is in the book is in the process, those are not lies, that can be verified by comparing the case files with the book and this court has not put that truth at stake. Nonetheless, a compensation of that amount only clarifies that the McCann couple is worth more than any Portuguese citizen, dead or alive, and that they are above any god or divinity, which, according to politicians, Portuguese intellectuals and others from the so-called democratic world can be criticized, ridiculed and satirized. Look at the discussions about the terrorist attacks against French newspaper Charlie Hebdo… With my book I did not defame, nor did I have the intention to defame anyone, but merely to report what happened during the first five months of the investigation, thus replying to the attacks against my good name and my professional dignity. There is no, no can there be any, reserve duty that superimposes our right to react and to defend ourselves from defamation and injustice, putting the truth back when our fundamental rights are violated, even when the authors of such attacks are subjects of a powerful country, to which Portugal has always bowed, with a short interregnum when the Portuguese Republic was founded, largely a result of the English ultimatum.
 
Apart from the payment, the court decreed the prohibition of the sale of new editions of the book Maddie: A Verdade da Mentira. Nevertheless, the Appellate Court had decided to annul this prohibition back in 2010…
 
This court has not undone what had been decided by Lisbon’s Appellate Court within the injunction that was filed by the complainants. It should be clarified that the only decision that has, so far, become effective is that of Lisbon’s Appellate Court. That is the only one that is in force, the rest is still subject to appeal and it will take a few years to come into force, while I hope that our superior courts will see this differently from the lower court. This is just the judicial system working, therefore we need to remain calm.
 
In a more practical manner, I can say that the claimants, the McCanns, haven’t won anything yet, they only lost, namely with the decision from Lisbon’s Appellate Court, which is very clear in stating that the rights that have been violated were mine, that I, within the exercise of freedom of speech, could write the book and practiced no illicit action.
 
With this prohibition, are you forbidden from emitting an opinion about the case or about the McCann couple?
 
I am a free man, and like any other citizen in this country, I have the right to express my opinions. I was a Criminal Investigation coordinator, a policeman, and there is no reserve duty, a functional or merely instrumental thing, from the exercise of a profession, that superimposes a fundamental right and freedom of expression. To state that the duty of reserve limits freedom of expression for life, or even during the exercise of the profession of policeman, is to elevate that duty, which is merely administrative, above freedom of expression and fundamental rights, consecrated in the Constitution of the Portuguese Republic, in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights and on the European Convention of Human Rights.
 
When you wrote the book, did it ever occur to you that you could be committing an offence?
 
I wrote the book because I, those who worked with me and the institution of the Judiciary Police were being put at stake. My good name and professional honour were severely attacked. In a first phase, I started by writing to the Judiciary Police’s national director, asking him to allow me to defend myself publicly or to come out to defend us, and I obtained no reply. Today, after all these years, I know that Dr. Alípio Ribeiro never received my letter, which was simply set aside by someone hierarchically below him.
 
Faced with the inertia and the silence from the institution that I belonged to, which, in my opinion, had the duty and the obligation to come out and defend the men and women who, with their work and great sacrifice, tried to protect it by performing an investigation at the level of any minimally developed country, I decided to ask for my retirement, and to report the criminal investigation that had been carried out and the conclusions that were reached up to the moment that I coordinated said investigation. At that time we already knew that the case was going to be shelved and the investigation abruptly ended. Everything was being prepared in that sense with the agreement, at least tacit, from the parents of the missing child, with the case files being delivered to journalists by the Public Ministry, which in itself question the duty of reserve to which, according to some experts, the policemen were subject to.
 
The book was a way to reply to the humiliation and the offences that I have been targeted with. Deep down, that was it: they say we are incompetent, they say we are a third world police force, drunkards, fat, lazy, etc., etc., and the Judiciary Police does not set out to defend us. Therefore I turned to writing, reporting the investigation that had been carried out, so people could draw their own conclusions. What happened next is known.
 
Do you feel abandoned by the intellectuals and the writers of this country?
 
Since I left the Judiciary Police, I am part of no institution, I have no political party, nor am I a member of any sports, recreational, cultural or social association, I do not belong to any congregation or obedience. I wrote three books (Maddie: A Verdade da Mentira; A Mordaça Inglesa; Vidas Sem Defesa), but I do not consider myself a writer. I’m an outsider.
 
Is freedom of expression not compromised by this type of verdict?
 
What is happening to me, since 2009, is an attack against freedom of expression and a trial over an offence of opinion. The intellectuals of this country, in general, have reacted with indifference. I am not part of their group, and to make things worse I’m an ex-policeman, something that is reproved by many. As far as I remember, only Dr. Francisco Teixeira da Mota, when the Appeals Court’s decision came out, wrote about the matter, saying that the decision had been correct, as the Portuguese State risked being condemned by the European Court for Human Rights… Someone asked me why the Portuguese Authors’ Society had not come out to defend freedom of expression and to denounce the attack that is underway. I replied I was not a member, which may explain the silence.
 
Are you still dedicated to writing?
 
I continue to write, but I have yet to decide when to publish. At the moment, I am writing my memoirs about the profession of criminal investigator.
 
Why are you economically suffocated? Your house in Tavira went to the bank, your consultancy firm had to close, one third of your pension is arrested…
 
To all of those questions I only reply that my life is gone. If I am alive, it’s due to the heart that I have.
 
Have you never considered suing the McCanns over the damages that they caused to your family?
 
Each thing in its own time, it won’t be only the McCanns, but their group of friends, and other people and entities that will be sued. There is an illicit action that was indeed performed, the neglect in guarding their children, which caused direct damages to many people, not only to myself, but for example to the Ocean Club workers, who were fired and saw their lives change, many of them unjustly passing from mere employees and heads of family to suspects in a criminal investigation, while they had nothing to do with the matter.
 
Is there a project that you would like to realise some day?
 
I would like to channel all the support that I have been receiving into the creation of an institution to support children and teenagers at risk, in a perspective of educating them for life, escaping the benefits perspective, promoting and building life projects with them, helping them to escape marginalization and the labeling process.
 
With so many problems, do you still have time to dream?
 
Dreaming is a part of free men, it costs no money, it can’t be bought, and we just live and feel it.
 
What remains unexplained in this case?
 
I don’t answer that question. Faced with what was said by the couple, after the verdict was known, that they felt stronger, I just feel like saying that only vampires become stronger with their victims’ blood. Like Zeca Afonso [Portuguese songwriter and singer] sang, “they eat everything”…
 
Text: Alexandra Ferreira ([You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]);
Photos: Lusa, Paula Alveno and IMPALA
 
in: Nova Gente, 15.05.2015, paper edition
 
[You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]

I wish him all the best.

PeterMac wrote:[You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]

Of which this bit jumped out

Have you never considered suing the McCanns over the damages that they caused to your family?

Each thing in its own time, it won’t be only the McCanns, but their group of friends, and other people and entities that will be sued. There is an illicit action that was indeed performed, the neglect in guarding their children, which caused direct damages to many people, not only to myself, but for example to the Ocean Club workers, who were fired and saw their lives change, many of them unjustly passing from mere employees and heads of family to suspects in a criminal investigation, while they had nothing to do with the matter.

Come on GA.   Força ! !
The world is behind you.

Thank you Doug D for posting the whole of the interview. 

quote:  "There is an illicit action that was indeed performed, the neglect in guarding their children"

I wonder if those thoughts are with her and her friends as they train and pose for photos at their charity run and bike races.  

I wonder if the people at Missing People ever think about that and if they do, think how the heck could they have ever, ever appointed her as an ambassador for missing people?

That interview is gut wrenching and shows the real misery that Goncalo has had to endure all these years and is still enduring.

No posing for photos and bike rides for him, but as the old saying goes - every dog has it's day and I hope that comes as quickly as possible.

In UK I believe there is a system in place that if a premium is paid the courts will hear cases relatively quickly in the High Courts.   Would this be possible in Portugal?

Which ever way the appeal goes, it looks as though he will be able to sue as stated above.  Karma.

Thanks for that.

Excellent analogy at the end

"Faced with what was said by the couple, after the verdict was known, that they felt stronger, only vampires become stronger with their victims` blood.  They eat everything"

Karma will come but maybe not in this time ,but at another ,it will be shown to them how bad they had conducted their lives before  joyce1938

joyce1938 wrote:Karma will come but maybe not in this time ,but at another ,it will be shown to them how bad they had conducted their lives before  joyce1938

It will come when the twins reach an age whern they can read and UNDERSTAND what their parents did.
They may come to understand that being abandoned for five nights in a row, even though their elder sister had remonstrated with her parents for neglecting them
IS
COMPLETE
B* * * *
and they may then work out what may well have happened.


If that is their DEFENCE . . .   what the Hell was the Crime ?

If the action brought by them was never about the money I wonder if they have ever considered saying that they are prepared to forgo the monetary award entirely as they feel a point has been made?

It’s sad, but my lawyer could only access the sentence, that afternoon, because a British journalist sent it to him by e-mail
--------------------------------------------------------

British 'journalist'?

'Friendly' or 'antagonistic' (taking the p*ss)?

WHO is this British 'journalist'?

and WHY would this 'journalist' e-mail GA's lawyer? (before the 'process' was officially 'known' and 'published' on Citius website )

Has this 'journalist' spoken 'up' on 'behalf' of GA, these last 8 years?

If not, WHY not?

plebgate wrote:If the action brought by them was never about the money I wonder if they have ever considered saying that they are prepared to forgo the monetary award entirely as they feel a point has been made?

errr, Umm,  err,  yer know, errrr, like, umm

NO


The "never about money" was clearly Mitchell desperately trying to put some positive spin on a dreadful situation, where they had been proved to be Mendacious, and vindictive and grasping.
Her quote about Wanting Dr Amaral to feel paid and fear . . is on the record and in the public's mind.
Mitchell possibly thought that the facts might be reported, and tried to get in with his retaliation first.
Facts such as

PROVED FACTS
Taking into account the matter considered undisputed in the selection of facts and the decision handed down in due course after producing the matter of evidence and discussing the case, the following facts are demonstrated :

6. The British police dogs “Eddie” and “Keela” detected human blood and cadaver in the apartment 5A, Ocean Club [alínea AR) of the undisputed facts].
7. The British police dogs “Eddie” and “Keela” detected human blood and cadaver in a vehicle rented by the claimants after the disappearance of MMC [alínea AS) of the undisputed facts].

and that the fact of their having 58% of the costs awarded AGAINST them (and the TWINS ! !)  might leak into the public domain.

And once again by trying to divert attention away, they have brought the focus on the reality.
Everything they say, and everything Mitchell says, may be assumed to be a LIE, unless the contrary can be proved.
Nothing they say, ever again, will be accepted at face value.  Ever.  By anyone, (sane !)

Excellent interview.
I so hope he publishes more.

Just noticed there are two threads going now with the exact same title, and i posted in the other one. Do they need to be merged?

GA, "I can only ask if those who, for more than five nights, left their three children, aged three and two, to their own devices in a house within an unknown space, subjecting them to a thousand dangers, while they were partying with friends – not to mention the amounts of alcohol that was ingested on those occasions -, still has the right to be compensated. They practiced a crime of exposing and abandoning defenceless children and they weren’t even accused of that fact. Looking at our criminal legislation, at the English child protection legislation and at cases that recently happened with British subjects in the Algarve, after drunken nights, all that I can say is that the McCann couple is primarily responsible for their daughter’s disappearance. She only disappeared because they neglected her guard and, as parents, they were obliged to it. It is a FACT that THEY lost their daughter"
-------------------------------------------------

Now, 'spookily', 'thinking' that GA would, at some time, 'do' an 'interview', mentioning 'neglect', on Tuesday, this week, i thought i might 're-visit' Portuguese law, article 138, relating to 'Exposure or Abandonment'

Here it is:

Portuguese Judicial Code
Article 138
Exposure or abandonment

1 - Whom endangers the life of another person:
a) By exposing a 'person' in a place where the person is subject to a situation which the 'person' cannot defend themself from, on their own; or

b) By abandoning the 'person' in a defenseless state, for motive of age, physical defect or illness, when the 'agent' (parent, guardian) had the duty to guard, watch or assist to the person;
is punishable with a prison term of 1 to 5 years.

2 - If the fact is practised by an ascendant or descendant, adoptant or adoptee (parent/guardian) of the 'person/victim', the 'agent' (parent/guardian) is punished with a prison term of 2 to 5 years.

3 - If the fact results in:
a) Serious offense to the physical integrity, the 'agent' (parent/guardian) is punished with a prison term of 2 to 8 years;
b) Death, the 'agent' (parent/guardian) is punished with a prison term of 3 to 10 years.
-----------------------------

Now, which one of the 3 (and sub clauses, above) does NOT, can not, specfically 'relate' to the McCanns and their, diliberate and conscious, 'decision', to 'leave' their 3 children, all under 4 years of age, alone, in an unlocked apartment, out of their eyesight?

Rhetorical!

NONE, 'do'!

Now, which one of the 3 (and sub clauses, above) DOES, CAN, specfically 'relate' to the McCanns and their, diliberate and conscious, 'decision', to 'leave' their 3 children, all under 4 years of age, alone, in an unlocked apartment, out of their eyesight?

Rhetorical!

ALL 'do'!

As GA, rightly, states: "It is a FACT that THEY 'lost' their daughter"

Nobody 'else' to BLAME, for Madeleine's 'disappearance', but THEMSELVES, as totally irresponsible parents!

THEY, the McCann's, DILIBERATELY and CONSCIOUSLY, 'created' the conditions, THEY left the apartment UNLOCKED/UNSECURED, nobody else DID, that 'COULD', totally lead to 'HARM', 'ABDUCTION' 'R*PE' or even, 'DEATH', of ALL their THREE children.

NOW, THAT, IS, an, beyond contestation,'FACT'

As the McCann's, THEMSELVES, have 'admitted', countless times!

"WE weren't THERE!" ('in apartment' say G&K McCann)

Nothing to 'shout' about, i wouldn't have thought!

Do i 'care' if 'they' have 'sleepless' nights, after their 'actions' regarding three 'babies', one of whom, is now 'said' to be 'abducted'*? (* ONLY 'claimed', to be 'abducted', by the McCann 'couple')

Rhetorical,......... AGAIN!

jeanmonroe wrote:"I can only ask if those who, for more than five nights, left their three children, aged three and two, to their own devices in a house within an unknown space, subjecting them to a thousand dangers, while they were partying with friends – not to mention the amounts of alcohol that was ingested on those occasions -, still has the right to be compensated. They practiced a crime of exposing and abandoning defenceless children and they weren’t even accused of that fact. Looking at our criminal legislation, at the English child protection legislation and at cases that recently happened with British subjects in the Algarve, after drunken nights, all that I can say is that the McCann couple is primarily responsible for their daughter’s disappearance. She only disappeared because they neglected her guard and, as parents, they were obliged to it. It is a FACT that THEY lost their daughter"
-------------------------------------------------

Now, 'spookily', 'thinking' that GA would, at some time, 'do' an 'interview', mentioning 'neglect', on Tuesday, this week, i thought i might 're-visit' Portuguese law, article 138, relating to 'Exposure or Abandonment'

Here it is:

Portuguese Judicial Code
Article 138
Exposure or abandonment

1 - Whom endangers the life of another person:
a) By exposing a 'person' in a place where the person is subject to a situation which the 'person' cannot defend themself from, on their own; or

b) By abandoning the 'person' in a defenseless state, for motive of age, physical defect or illness, when the 'agent' (parent, guardian) had the duty to guard, watch or assist to the person;
is punishable with a prison term of 1 to 5 years.

2 - If the fact is practised by an ascendant or descendant, adoptant or adoptee (parent/guardian) of the 'person/victim', the 'agent' (parent/guardian) is punished with a prison term of 2 to 5 years.

3 - If the fact results in:
a) Serious offense to the physical integrity, the 'agent' (parent/guardian) is punished with a prison term of 2 to 8 years;
b) Death, the 'agent' (parent/guardian) is punished with a prison term of 3 to 10 years.
-----------------------------

Now, which one of the 3 (and sub clauses, above) does NOT, can not, specfically 'relate' to the McCanns and their, diliberate and conscious, 'decision', to 'leave' their 3 children, all under 4 years of age, alone, in an unlocked apartment, out of their eyesight?

Rhetorical!

NONE, 'do'!

Now, which one of the 3 (and sub clauses, above) DOES, CAN, specfically 'relate' to the McCanns and their, diliberate and conscious, 'decision', to 'leave' their 3 children, all under 4 years of age, alone, in an unlocked apartment, out of their eyesight?

Rhetorical!

ALL 'do'!

As GA, rightly, states: "It is a FACT that THEY 'lost' their daughter"

Nobody 'else' to BLAME, for Madeleine's 'disappearance', but THEMSELVES, as totally irresponsible parents!

THEY, the McCann's, DILIBERATELY and CONSCIOUSLY, 'created' the conditions, THEY left the apartment UNLOCKED/UNSECURED, nobody else DID, that 'COULD', totally lead to 'HARM', 'ABDUCTION' 'R*PE' or even, 'DEATH', of ALL their THREE children.

Do i 'care' if 'they' have 'sleepless' nights, after their 'actions' regarding three 'babies', one of whom, is now 'said' to be 'abducted'*? (* ONLY 'claimed', to be 'abducted', by the McCann 'couple')

Rhetorical,......... AGAIN!      

Ref. red highlighting.

I wonder if they will think of suing him again?

If I were to place a bet on it I  would bet NO - on the basis of we have seen what happens in a witness box.

I wonder if they will think of suing him again?

If I were to place a bet on it I  would bet NO - on the basis of we have seen what happens in a witness box.
----------------------------------

THEY can 'SUE' me, instead!

MY 'fifteen minutes' of 'fame'?

ps: 'They' are going to have to FIRST 'sue' the 'wicked' Judge, who 'awarded' them E500,000 in 'damages' for saying that GA's 'thesis' CAN be 'sustained' and that it is not 'illegal' to 'say' that!

The same 'thesis', in published 'form', that caused the McCann's, AND their children, so much 'stress, depression, indefinable fear, loss of apertite, etc, etc.,'

AFTER the Judge 'suing', they can 'sue' the entire PJ, from where GA 'got' his 'thesis', AFTER the 'case' was 'shelved'

THEN, 'they' could 'sue' the MET/OG for mentioning 'murder'!

THEN, 'they' could 'sue' the BBC for 'repeating' and broadcasting, GA's 'thesis' on national television..

That 'little lot' should keep them, buzy, buzy, buzy, for the next EIGHT YEARS!

'They' MIGHT 'search', for Madeleine, in between the law suits!

But, there again,.................. probably NOT!

Kate McCann's lawyer Carlos Pinto de Abreu: If you were Portuguese this would be enough to put you in prison.


Their own lawyer's words.   I don't think Goncalo will be sued and IMO he KNOWS it.

As he said, he is a free man and I would like to see more interviews with him speaking out.

Will the UK MSM   print this interview -   will they eck as like - I will eat my hat if they do.

j.rob.

"They practiced a crime of exposing and abandoning defenceless children and they weren’t even accused of that fact."
----------------------------------------

See my 'post' upthread.

IT IS A 'CRIME' under Portuguese Law, Article 138, regarding 'Exposure and Abandonment'

The McCann's, and their T7 'friends', DID 'commit' a 'crime'!

Who 'knows' WHY they weren't 'charged', is anybody's 'guess'

You and I, and Miss 'feckless' sink estate mum, WOULD have been!

NO IF'S, NO BUT'S!

I think we 'know' WHY they weren't 'charged', don't you?

TB, GB, Socrates, DM, JS etc, etc.,

plebgate wrote:Kate McCann's lawyer Carlos Pinto de Abreu: If you were Portuguese this would be enough to put you in prison.


Their own lawyer's words.   I don't think Goncalo will be sued and IMO he KNOWS it.

As he said, he is a free man and I would like to see more interviews with him speaking out.

Will the UK MSM   print this interview -   will they eck as like - I will eat my hat if they do.

They don't even dare to publish the findings of the judge, who ruled in favor of the McCanns. 
But in the meantime she said: 

Facts proved: 6. The British police dogs “Eddie” and “Keela” detected human blood and cadaver in the apartment 5A, Ocean Club [alínea AR) of the undisputed facts]. 7. The British police dogs “Eddie” and “Keela” detected human blood and cadaver in a vehicle rented by the claimants after the disappearance of MMC [alínea AS) of the undisputed facts].

They don't even dare to publish the findings of the judge, who ruled in favor of the McCanns. 
But in the meantime she said: 

Facts proved: 6. The British police dogs “Eddie” and “Keela” detected human blood and cadaver in the apartment 5A, Ocean Club [alínea AR) of the undisputed facts]. 7. The British police dogs “Eddie” and “Keela” detected human blood and cadaver in a vehicle rented by the claimants after the disappearance of MMC [alínea AS) of the undisputed facts].

Is the judge implying the blood and cadaverine were planted?

katkat wrote:

They don't even dare to publish the findings of the judge, who ruled in favor of the McCanns. 
But in the meantime she said: 

Facts proved: 6. The British police dogs “Eddie” and “Keela” detected human blood and cadaver in the apartment 5A, Ocean Club [alínea AR) of the undisputed facts]. 7. The British police dogs “Eddie” and “Keela” detected human blood and cadaver in a vehicle rented by the claimants after the disappearance of MMC [alínea AS) of the undisputed facts].

Is the judge implying the blood and cadaverine were planted?

No, the judge says that it is proven that blood and cadaverine were detected in app 5A and the rental car.

With saying that the judge indicates that "Eddie" and "Keela" are utterly reliable.
It also indicates that there was a body in app 5A and the car.

katkat wrote:

They don't even dare to publish the findings of the judge, who ruled in favor of the McCanns. 
But in the meantime she said: 

Facts proved: 6. The British police dogs “Eddie” and “Keela” detected human blood and cadaver in the apartment 5A, Ocean Club [alínea AR) of the undisputed facts]. 7. The British police dogs “Eddie” and “Keela” detected human blood and cadaver in a vehicle rented by the claimants after the disappearance of MMC [alínea AS) of the undisputed facts].

Is the judge implying the blood and cadaverine were planted?

No, i don't think so. The judge as noted in the second paragraph mentions "undisputed facts". Which to me says from a legal point of view the facts of the dogs evidence has never been legally disputed because there has never been a Trial in this case with experts to hash it out in court to dispute the evidence, as in other criminal trials? I could be wrong but that is how i interpret that sentence. There are probably other undisputed facts in the case also?
If the case never goes to Trial then there will always be undisputed facts IMO.

Question of Fact

An issue that involves the resolution of a factual dispute or controversy and is within the sphere of the decisions to be made by a jury.
A question of fact is a factual dispute between litigants that must be resolved by the jury at trial. It is an issue that is material to the outcome of the case and requires an interpretation of conflicting views on the factual circumstances surrounding the case.
[You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]

Joss wrote:

katkat wrote:

They don't even dare to publish the findings of the judge, who ruled in favor of the McCanns. 
But in the meantime she said: 

Facts proved: 6. The British police dogs “Eddie” and “Keela” detected human blood and cadaver in the apartment 5A, Ocean Club [alínea AR) of the undisputed facts]. 7. The British police dogs “Eddie” and “Keela” detected human blood and cadaver in a vehicle rented by the claimants after the disappearance of MMC [alínea AS) of the undisputed facts].

Is the judge implying the blood and cadaverine were planted?

No, i don't think so. The judge as noted in the second paragraph mentions "undisputed facts". Which to me says from a legal point of view the facts of the dogs evidence has never been legally disputed because there has never been a Trial in this case with experts to hash it out in court to dispute the evidence, as in other criminal trials? I could be wrong but that is how i interpret that sentence. There are probably other undisputed facts in the case also?
If the case never goes to Trial then there will always be undisputed facts IMO.

Idk, Joss, to me the word 'proven' means there is no reasonable doubt that there was blood and cadaverine in the apartment and hire car. Given that, how could the judge rule against Dr Amaral unless she was implying that there is some other possible explanation other than the McCann' s involvement which cannot be ruled out?

katkat wrote:

Joss wrote:

katkat wrote:

They don't even dare to publish the findings of the judge, who ruled in favor of the McCanns. 
But in the meantime she said: 

Facts proved: 6. The British police dogs “Eddie” and “Keela” detected human blood and cadaver in the apartment 5A, Ocean Club [alínea AR) of the undisputed facts]. 7. The British police dogs “Eddie” and “Keela” detected human blood and cadaver in a vehicle rented by the claimants after the disappearance of MMC [alínea AS) of the undisputed facts].

Is the judge implying the blood and cadaverine were planted?

No, i don't think so. The judge as noted in the second paragraph mentions "undisputed facts". Which to me says from a legal point of view the facts of the dogs evidence has never been legally disputed because there has never been a Trial in this case with experts to hash it out in court to dispute the evidence, as in other criminal trials? I could be wrong but that is how i interpret that sentence. There are probably other undisputed facts in the case also?
If the case never goes to Trial then there will always be undisputed facts IMO.

Idk, Joss, to me the word 'proven' means there is no reasonable doubt that there was blood and cadaverine in the apartment and hire car. Given that, how could the judge rule against Dr Amaral unless she was implying that there is some other possible explanation other than the McCann' s involvement which cannot be ruled out?

Hi kat, IMO the judge had no business treating the trial as if it were a criminal trial, it was not a criminal trial, it was a civil case.
Why would she even bring this evidence into a damages trial? It really had nothing to do with it, only to assert or not if by writing his book on the investigation that Goncalo Amaral had brought about any damage to the McCann's. He did not. It was never proven by the McC's in court. The damages they incurred were already incurred by their actions of leaving and neglecting three little children under the age of four years old in a strange apartment in a foreign country while they wined & dined with their friends. They left those children in a very dangerous situation and caused their eldest child Madeleine the worst damage of all. But they seem to not be able to accept their responsibility in the fact that their actions alone from the evidence we know, cost their child her life. Or worse, according to the McC's she was in some paedo/predator's lair.

katkat wrote:

Joss wrote:

katkat wrote:

They don't even dare to publish the findings of the judge, who ruled in favor of the McCanns. 
But in the meantime she said: 

Facts proved: 6. The British police dogs “Eddie” and “Keela” detected human blood and cadaver in the apartment 5A, Ocean Club [alínea AR) of the undisputed facts]. 7. The British police dogs “Eddie” and “Keela” detected human blood and cadaver in a vehicle rented by the claimants after the disappearance of MMC [alínea AS) of the undisputed facts].

Is the judge implying the blood and cadaverine were planted?

No, i don't think so. The judge as noted in the second paragraph mentions "undisputed facts". Which to me says from a legal point of view the facts of the dogs evidence has never been legally disputed because there has never been a Trial in this case with experts to hash it out in court to dispute the evidence, as in other criminal trials? I could be wrong but that is how i interpret that sentence. There are probably other undisputed facts in the case also?
If the case never goes to Trial then there will always be undisputed facts IMO.

Idk, Joss, to me the word 'proven' means there is no reasonable doubt that there was blood and cadaverine in the apartment and hire car. Given that, how could the judge rule against Dr Amaral unless she was implying that there is some other possible explanation other than the McCann' s involvement which cannot be ruled out?

The judge says somewhere that it is not illegal to say that Madeleine died in the app, and her body was hidden by her parents (paraphrased). It's somewhere here:
[You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]

What she rules is that, in spite of his retirement, Dr. Amaral is still bound by the rules of secrecy he had as PJ officer. She also rules that the right of a good name trumps the right of freedom of speech. If the latter is true, than one of Dr. Amaral's reasons for writing the book (clearing his name) should have been taken into consideration too, imo.

The other argument means that all those books written by ex-PJ officers should be taken of the market. That's a far reaching opinion. It is also more or less the ruling that was earlier overturned by a higher court.

I don't think here you will find many supporters of the judges ruling. 

It is however interesting that the judge rules: the dogs were right

and

the reason the McCanns claim to be behind this suit (the damage to the twins, and the damage to the search) are both NOT proven facts.

I also don't know how Portugese treat criminal cases, but the normal process from what i know is to arrest and charge a perpetrator with a crime on evidence. They are then imprisoned and can employ a lawyer to represent them, and can also apply for bail until they get their day in court during the trial to either prove their case or have their case disproven. This is decided by a Jury whether as to guilt or innocence. If proven guilty they are imprisoned until the sentencing phase. If proven not guilty they are acquitted.
The McCann's have never been arrested or imprisoned on any charges of a crime in relation to their missing child.
They were only made formal suspects, or Arguido status in Portugal where the crime occurred, but not charged or arrested.
Unless this case goes to trial i don't believe any judge or anyone else for that matter can say definitely the McCann's are guilty or not of any crime. That is only determined by a jury on evidence presented for the prosecution or defense, as to formally call them criminals or not, depending on what is proven legally.
The general public though can have its own opinion on how they see it, as we discuss on these forums, and what the investigation in Portugal found that led them to believe as they did. But it looks as if the McCann's will never be formally charged by the court or a jury of their peers for reasons we can only speculate about, as to why they have been so protected by the establishment.

lj wrote:

katkat wrote:

Joss wrote:

katkat wrote:

They don't even dare to publish the findings of the judge, who ruled in favor of the McCanns. 
But in the meantime she said: 

Facts proved: 6. The British police dogs “Eddie” and “Keela” detected human blood and cadaver in the apartment 5A, Ocean Club [alínea AR) of the undisputed facts]. 7. The British police dogs “Eddie” and “Keela” detected human blood and cadaver in a vehicle rented by the claimants after the disappearance of MMC [alínea AS) of the undisputed facts].

Is the judge implying the blood and cadaverine were planted?

No, i don't think so. The judge as noted in the second paragraph mentions "undisputed facts". Which to me says from a legal point of view the facts of the dogs evidence has never been legally disputed because there has never been a Trial in this case with experts to hash it out in court to dispute the evidence, as in other criminal trials? I could be wrong but that is how i interpret that sentence. There are probably other undisputed facts in the case also?
If the case never goes to Trial then there will always be undisputed facts IMO.

Idk, Joss, to me the word 'proven' means there is no reasonable doubt that there was blood and cadaverine in the apartment and hire car. Given that, how could the judge rule against Dr Amaral unless she was implying that there is some other possible explanation other than the McCann' s involvement which cannot be ruled out?

The judge says somewhere that it is not illegal to say that Madeleine died in the app, and her body was hidden by her parents (paraphrased). It's somewhere here:
[You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]

What she rules is that, in spite of his retirement, Dr. Amaral is still bound by the rules of secrecy he had as PJ officer. She also rules that the right of a good name trumps the right of freedom of speech. If the latter is true, than one of Dr. Amaral's reasons for writing the book (clearing his name) should have been taken into consideration too, imo.

The other argument means that all those books written by ex-PJ officers should be taken of the market. That's a far reaching opinion. It is also more or less the ruling that was earlier overturned by a higher court.

I don't think here you will find many supporters of the judges ruling. 

It is however interesting that the judge rules: the dogs were right

and

the reason the McCanns claim to be behind this suit (the damage to the twins, and the damage to the search) are both NOT proven facts.

I would of thought that as a retired PJ officer Goncalo Amaral would of checked if he was within his rights to write the book, perhaps with a lawyer? And what was so secret about what he wrote when the PJ files are in the public domain for all to read, upon which he bases his book. I wonder if the Judge was right to make such a determination legally, and to not uphold the previous court's determination that unbanned his book?
Her judgement seems very unfair IMO, to not take into consideration GA's rights as well. I guess we will see what happens with the Appeal.

I think most of us here don't think she was right. Also it seems the same argument as was used  in the beginning to get all the books seized, a decision that was later over turned on appeal. So we hope he has good chances an appeal again.

Dr. Amaral develops a theory in his book, based on the info of the PJ files. The conclusion of that theory is that Madeleine died in the apartment and her parents hid the body (all very much paraphrased). In a normal world nobody should be able to deny you the right to say, write or televise that theory. But this is the McCann world. 

As far as your other post about only being guilty, after being found guilty. Portugal does not have the jury system, so that would be by a judge. It might be interesting to mention here a part of the "archiving report"  from The Republic's Prosecutor - José de Magalhaes e Menezes and The Joint General Prosecutor - Joao Melchior Gomes: We believe that the main damage was caused to the McCann arguidos, who lost the possibility to prove what they have protested since they were constituted arguidos: their innocence towards the fateful event; the investigation was also disturbed, because said facts remain not clarified."  This was about the refusal to do a reconstruction.
Also an interesting remark is from the Assistant Chief Constable Of Leicestershire Police a written quote he made in submission to a UK Court in 2008 regarding the McCann’s when they were seeking access to the UK held Police files relating to the case : “While one or both of them may be innocent, there is no clear evidence that eliminates them from involvement in Madeleine’s disappearance.”
Both seem to indicate that, while everyone has the right to be considered innocent until proven guilty, it is very much necessary for the course of justice to consider the possibility of the parents to be guilty.

lj wrote:I think most of us here don't think she was right. Also it seems the same argument as was used  in the beginning to get all the books seized, a decision that was later over turned on appeal. So we hope he has good chances an appeal again.

Dr. Amaral develops a theory in his book, based on the info of the PJ files. The conclusion of that theory is that Madeleine died in the apartment and her parents hid the body (all very much paraphrased). In a normal world nobody should be able to deny you the right to say, write or televise that theory. But this is the McCann world. 

As far as your other post about only being guilty, after being found guilty. Portugal does not have the jury system, so that would be by a judge. It might be interesting to mention here a part of the "archiving report"  from The Republic's Prosecutor - José de Magalhaes e Menezes and The Joint General Prosecutor - Joao Melchior Gomes: We believe that the main damage was caused to the McCann arguidos, who lost the possibility to prove what they have protested since they were constituted arguidos: their innocence towards the fateful event; the investigation was also disturbed, because said facts remain not clarified."  This was about the refusal to do a reconstruction.
Also an interesting remark is from the Assistant Chief Constable Of Leicestershire Police a written quote he made in submission to a UK Court in 2008 regarding the McCann’s when they were seeking access to the UK held Police files relating to the case : “While one or both of them may be innocent, there is no clear evidence that eliminates them from involvement in Madeleine’s disappearance.”
Both seem to indicate that, while everyone has the right to be considered innocent until proven guilty, it is very much necessary for the course of justice to consider the possibility of the parents to be guilty.

Thanks for clarification that Portugal does not have a Trial by Jury system, i wasn't sure as i mentioned previously what their system is.
I guess from the statement “While one or both of them may be innocent, there is no clear evidence that eliminates them from involvement in Madeleine’s disappearance.”   IMO there is actually evidence to implicate them in Maddie's disappearance, but they won't arrest & charge because of the political interference, IMO, to absolve the McC's from any wrongdoing for reasons we will never know. I suppose if the public want to voice their dissaproval, it would be to stop any support to those people in any way. Then they might just quietly fade away into the background. I think the tide has already started to turn against them as people are starting to realize what they are actually all about. What a shame it has taken this long, but as they say, better late than never.