Re: McCanns v Amaral trial is NOT LIBEL!

by Guest 22.05.15 15:03

Also... there is the interim report of Tavares Almeida.

That's in the public domain.

Says the same thing as Amaral says.

Conclusions:

From everything that we have discovered, our files result in the following conclusions:

A. the minor Madeleine McCann died in Apartment 5A at the Ocean Club resort in Praia da Luz, on the night of 3 May 2007

B. a simulation - a staged hoax - of an abduction took place

C. in order to render the child’s death impossible before 10.00pm, a situation of checking of the McCann couple’s children while they slept was concocted

D. Dr Gerald McCann and Dr Kate McCann are involved in the concealment of the corpse of their daughter, Madeleine McCann

E. at this moment, there seems to be no strong indications that the child’s death was other than the result of a tragic accident, yet;

F. from what has been established up to now, everything indicates that the McCann couple, in self-defence, did not want to deliver up Madeleine’s corpse immediately and voluntarily, and there is a strong possibility therefore that it was moved from the initial place where she died. This situation may raise questions concerning the circumstances in which the death of the child took place.

G. Therefore, we suggest that the case files are sent to the Republic’s Prosecutor, in the Lagos legal district, for:

1) possible new questioning of the arguidos Dr Gerald and Dr Kate McCann, and

2) an evaluation of the measure of restraint to be applied in this case.

During the house search at the McCann couple’s residence, a diary style manuscript was found, already photocopied, possibly authored by Dr Kate McCann; admitting that it may contain information that may help to reach the material truth of facts.

We therefore propose that the photocopies of the said document are presented to the illustrious judge for the purpose of its apprehension (if legal), its translation and eventual collection of information to be included in the files, as necessary for the investigation.

At this date, I submit the case files for your appreciation, for you to determine whatever you may see as convenient.

10 September 2007
Chief Inspector Tavares de Almeida

by OxfordBloo 22.05.15 15:34

As I have said, I am not in any way interpreting Portuguese law, merely outlining the reasoning in the judgement.

I will leave it to others here to claim some expertise in Portuguese Law, though all things considered I rationally place more confidence in the arguments of a professional Portuguese judge as written down in a formal judgement in a Portuguese court over the views of posters on a British chat board.

by TheTruthWillOut 22.05.15 15:39

So this judge has been very "creative" finding a law about pensions and used that against GA?

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

Click on 'decree-law 498/72 in bold just below 'legislation'. Page 19 is the part used by the judge.

by Joss 22.05.15 15:43

OxfordBloo wrote:As I have said, I am not in any way interpreting Portuguese law, merely outlining the reasoning in the judgement.

I will leave it to others here to claim some expertise in Portuguese Law, though all things considered I rationally place more confidence in the arguments of a professional Portuguese judge as written down in a formal judgement in a Portuguese court over the views of posters on a British chat board.

Maybe you would have better luck discussing with your Portugese Legal scource you mentioned upthread, LOL. Surely they would know more than any of us?

Your post, page 3 of the thread
That is what I have been informed by my Portuguese legal source. I added it for illustration. We must wait to find out what grounds of appeal might be cited. Then we will know if appeal is possible on law or fact. My advice I that the judge if the first instance is the arbiter of fact.

by Joss 22.05.15 15:56

TheTruthWillOut wrote:So this judge has been very "creative" finding a law about pensions and used that against GA?

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

Click on 'decree-law 498/72 in bold just below 'legislation'. Page 19 is the part used by the judge.

Interesting.

by Guest 22.05.15 16:50

TheTruthWillOut wrote:So this judge has been very "creative" finding a law about pensions and used that against GA?

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

Click on 'decree-law 498/72 in bold just below 'legislation'. Page 19 is the part used by the judge.

Creative is true.

She managed a tenuous link to the legislation that applies to retired judges duty of reserve and then tries to extrapolate that to retired police officers.

There is nothing in the legislation for retired police officers that limits freedom of expression and opinion.

But anything to nail Amaral... I think that's what the delay was all about.

by OxfordBloo 22.05.15 17:22

BlueBag wrote:
TheTruthWillOut wrote:So this judge has been very "creative" finding a law about pensions and used that against GA?

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

Click on 'decree-law 498/72 in bold just below 'legislation'. Page 19 is the part used by the judge.
Creative is true.

She managed a tenuous link to the legislation that applies to retired judges duty of reserve and then tries to extrapolate that to retired police officers.

There is nothing in the legislation for retired police officers that limits freedom of expression and opinion.

But anything to nail Amaral... I think that's what the delay was all about.

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."

by Guest 22.05.15 17:26

OxfordBloo wrote:
BlueBag wrote:
TheTruthWillOut wrote:So this judge has been very "creative" finding a law about pensions and used that against GA?

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

Click on 'decree-law 498/72 in bold just below 'legislation'. Page 19 is the part used by the judge.
Creative is true.

She managed a tenuous link to the legislation that applies to retired judges duty of reserve and then tries to extrapolate that to retired police officers.

There is nothing in the legislation for retired police officers that limits freedom of expression and opinion.

But anything to nail Amaral... I think that's what the delay was all about.
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."

No I'm not.

Where does it say freedom of expression and opinion is not the same as anyone else's?

The legislation is quite specific. It does not mention duty of reserve.

Has Amaral been disciplined by the service?

by OxfordBloo 22.05.15 17:41

I have now read 498/72.

It is not about judges but about all state employees.

by OxfordBloo 22.05.15 17:45

BlueBag wrote:
OxfordBloo wrote:
BlueBag wrote:
TheTruthWillOut wrote:So this judge has been very "creative" finding a law about pensions and used that against GA?

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

Click on 'decree-law 498/72 in bold just below 'legislation'. Page 19 is the part used by the judge.
Creative is true.

She managed a tenuous link to the legislation that applies to retired judges duty of reserve and then tries to extrapolate that to retired police officers.

There is nothing in the legislation for retired police officers that limits freedom of expression and opinion.

But anything to nail Amaral... I think that's what the delay was all about.
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."
No I'm not.

Where does it say freedom of expression and opinion is not the same as anyone else's?

The legislation is quite specific. It does not mention duty of reserve.

Has Amaral been disciplined by the service?

The judge outlines this clearly:

Functionaries of the judicial system including police officers are forbidden under the quoted statutes to misuse privileged information gained in their employment or to state or imply that persons not found guilty are guilty. The references to these specific laws is posted above. 498/72 is quoted as it specifies tat the rights and duties of state employees continues during their post service pensionable time.

by Guest 22.05.15 17:55

OxfordBloo wrote:The judge outlines this clearly:

Functionaries of the judicial system including police officers are forbidden under the quoted statutes to misuse privileged information gained in their employment or to state or imply that persons not found guilty are guilty. The references to these specific laws is posted above. 498/72 is quoted as it specifies tat the rights and duties of state employees continues during their post service pensionable time.

Now I understand your purpose here.

by OxfordBloo 22.05.15 17:59

BlueBag wrote:
OxfordBloo wrote:The judge outlines this clearly:

Functionaries of the judicial system including police officers are forbidden under the quoted statutes to misuse privileged information gained in their employment or to state or imply that persons not found guilty are guilty. The references to these specific laws is posted above. 498/72 is quoted as it specifies tat the rights and duties of state employees continues during their post service pensionable time.
Now I understand your purpose here.

My only purpose is understanding the judgement.

by TheTruthWillOut 22.05.15 18:00

498/72 is about pensions and under what circumstances they will be reduced or lost. It just seems that article 74 had the right words for the judge to use, IMO.

by OxfordBloo 22.05.15 18:11

TheTruthWillOut wrote:498/72 is about pensions and under what circumstances they will be reduced or lost. It just seems that article 74 had the right words for the judge to use, IMO.

498/72 is about the recodification of retirement procedures for all state employees. At least that is what it says in its preamble.

by Liz Eagles 22.05.15 18:16

OxfordBloo wrote:
BlueBag wrote:
OxfordBloo wrote:The judge outlines this clearly:

Functionaries of the judicial system including police officers are forbidden under the quoted statutes to misuse privileged information gained in their employment or to state or imply that persons not found guilty are guilty. The references to these specific laws is posted above. 498/72 is quoted as it specifies tat the rights and duties of state employees continues during their post service pensionable time.
Now I understand your purpose here.
My only purpose is understanding the judgement.

I was under the impression that you are claiming yourself and your unnamed Portuguese legal source understand the judgment.

So strictly speaking it seems you want everyone else to see things your way. Over 40 posts from before 9am to past 6pm is quite an effort.

Oh well, I'm happy to leave it to the real legals and if it means chipping in a few more pounds to the Fund to assist Goncalo Amaral in his appeal - and there will be an appeal - probably won't be a problem for people.

by Joss 22.05.15 18:25

aquila wrote:
OxfordBloo wrote:
BlueBag wrote:
OxfordBloo wrote:The judge outlines this clearly:

Functionaries of the judicial system including police officers are forbidden under the quoted statutes to misuse privileged information gained in their employment or to state or imply that persons not found guilty are guilty. The references to these specific laws is posted above. 498/72 is quoted as it specifies tat the rights and duties of state employees continues during their post service pensionable time.
Now I understand your purpose here.
My only purpose is understanding the judgement.
I was under the impression that you are claiming yourself and your unnamed Portuguese legal source understand the judgment.

So strictly speaking it seems you want everyone else to see things your way. Over 40 posts from before 9am to past 6pm is quite an effort.

Oh well, I'm happy to leave it to the real legals and if it means chipping in a few more pounds to the Fund to assist Goncalo Amaral in his appeal - and there will be an appeal - probably won't be a problem for people.

I agree Aquila, this is just going around and around in circles getting nowhere, IMO. Too much ado about nothing. I'm about over it, lol. Yes, whatever we think doesn't matter, it will be up to the appeals court to determine if the judge was right or not in her judgement, that is what the appeals court is for, and nothing we say will make one iota of difference to the outcome.

by Guest 22.05.15 19:40

aquila wrote:
OxfordBloo wrote:
BlueBag wrote:
OxfordBloo wrote:The judge outlines this clearly:

Functionaries of the judicial system including police officers are forbidden under the quoted statutes to misuse privileged information gained in their employment or to state or imply that persons not found guilty are guilty. The references to these specific laws is posted above. 498/72 is quoted as it specifies tat the rights and duties of state employees continues during their post service pensionable time.
Now I understand your purpose here.
My only purpose is understanding the judgement.
I was under the impression that you are claiming yourself and your unnamed Portuguese legal source understand the judgment.

So strictly speaking it seems you want everyone else to see things your way. Over 40 posts from before 9am to past 6pm is quite an effort.

Oh well, I'm happy to leave it to the real legals and if it means chipping in a few more pounds to the Fund to assist Goncalo Amaral in his appeal - and there will be an appeal - probably won't be a problem for people.

It has been quite an effort.

To convince us that the appeal is hopeless, the judge got it right and the best Amaral can hope for is reduction of the award.

Meanwhile we're all wasting our money (so why give?).

Yes.. quite an effort.

by lj 23.05.15 3:13

Let's not forget:

From:
The Republic's Prosecutor: José de Magalhaes e Menezes and The Joint General Prosecutor: Joao Melchior Gomes

in the legal summary when the case was archived:

We believe that the main damaged party were the McCann arguidos, who missed the possibility to prove what they have protested since they were made arguidos: their innocence towards the fateful event; the investigation was also hindered, because said facts remain unclear (...)".

It does not look that they considered the couple innocent.

by Joss 23.05.15 6:08

OxfordBloo wrote:
BlueBag wrote:
OxfordBloo wrote:The judge outlines this clearly:

Functionaries of the judicial system including police officers are forbidden under the quoted statutes to misuse privileged information gained in their employment or to state or imply that persons not found guilty are guilty. The references to these specific laws is posted above. 498/72 is quoted as it specifies tat the rights and duties of state employees continues during their post service pensionable time.
Now I understand your purpose here.
My only purpose is understanding the judgement.

But from what you're writing here you already understand it from what you insist on.

by Joss 23.05.15 6:10

BlueBag wrote:
aquila wrote:
OxfordBloo wrote:
BlueBag wrote:
OxfordBloo wrote:The judge outlines this clearly:

Functionaries of the judicial system including police officers are forbidden under the quoted statutes to misuse privileged information gained in their employment or to state or imply that persons not found guilty are guilty. The references to these specific laws is posted above. 498/72 is quoted as it specifies tat the rights and duties of state employees continues during their post service pensionable time.
Now I understand your purpose here.
My only purpose is understanding the judgement.
I was under the impression that you are claiming yourself and your unnamed Portuguese legal source understand the judgment.

So strictly speaking it seems you want everyone else to see things your way. Over 40 posts from before 9am to past 6pm is quite an effort.

Oh well, I'm happy to leave it to the real legals and if it means chipping in a few more pounds to the Fund to assist Goncalo Amaral in his appeal - and there will be an appeal - probably won't be a problem for people.
It has been quite an effort.

To convince us that the appeal is hopeless, the judge got it right and the best Amaral can hope for is reduction of the award.

Meanwhile we're all wasting our money (so why give?).

Yes.. quite an effort.

I think so too BB, that is how it comes across to me too. Oh well....

by **Jill Havern** 23.05.15 6:12

BlueBag wrote:
aquila wrote:
OxfordBloo wrote:
BlueBag wrote:
OxfordBloo wrote:The judge outlines this clearly:

Functionaries of the judicial system including police officers are forbidden under the quoted statutes to misuse privileged information gained in their employment or to state or imply that persons not found guilty are guilty. The references to these specific laws is posted above. 498/72 is quoted as it specifies tat the rights and duties of state employees continues during their post service pensionable time.
Now I understand your purpose here.
My only purpose is understanding the judgement.
I was under the impression that you are claiming yourself and your unnamed Portuguese legal source understand the judgment.

So strictly speaking it seems you want everyone else to see things your way. Over 40 posts from before 9am to past 6pm is quite an effort.

Oh well, I'm happy to leave it to the real legals and if it means chipping in a few more pounds to the Fund to assist Goncalo Amaral in his appeal - and there will be an appeal - probably won't be a problem for people.
It has been quite an effort.

To convince us that the appeal is hopeless, the judge got it right and the best Amaral can hope for is reduction of the award.

Meanwhile we're all wasting our money (so why give?).

Yes.. quite an effort.

I've been reliably informed by OxfordBloo's 'unnamed Portuguese legal source' that he is actually the well-known McCann supporter, 'Debunker' who has already been here several times before posting misinformation on other threads.

No doubt he will be back with yet another new username in due course.

by Guest 23.05.15 7:05

Is he paid for his efforts? Yesterday was quite a commitment.

by **PeterMac** 23.05.15 7:52

Ladyinred wrote:Is he paid for his efforts? Yesterday was quite a commitment.

I certainly hope so.
That amount of time and effort should not go unrewarded by the McCanns. I hope their Fund has enough to pay for all their shills and disruptors

by Joss 23.05.15 8:57

Get'emGonçalo wrote:
BlueBag wrote:
aquila wrote:
OxfordBloo wrote:
BlueBag wrote:
OxfordBloo wrote:The judge outlines this clearly:

Functionaries of the judicial system including police officers are forbidden under the quoted statutes to misuse privileged information gained in their employment or to state or imply that persons not found guilty are guilty. The references to these specific laws is posted above. 498/72 is quoted as it specifies tat the rights and duties of state employees continues during their post service pensionable time.
Now I understand your purpose here.
My only purpose is understanding the judgement.
I was under the impression that you are claiming yourself and your unnamed Portuguese legal source understand the judgment.

So strictly speaking it seems you want everyone else to see things your way. Over 40 posts from before 9am to past 6pm is quite an effort.

Oh well, I'm happy to leave it to the real legals and if it means chipping in a few more pounds to the Fund to assist Goncalo Amaral in his appeal - and there will be an appeal - probably won't be a problem for people.
It has been quite an effort.

To convince us that the appeal is hopeless, the judge got it right and the best Amaral can hope for is reduction of the award.

Meanwhile we're all wasting our money (so why give?).

Yes.. quite an effort.
I've been reliably informed by OxfordBloo's 'unnamed Portuguese legal source' that he is actually the well-known McCann supporter, 'Debunker' who has already been here several times before posting misinformation on other threads.

No doubt he will be back with yet another new username in due course.

Thanks for posting the info. Get'emGoncalo. Thought there was something not quite right smilie

by Liz Eagles 23.05.15 9:25

It's not always easy to identify disruptors but OxfordBloo was a cinch. It was fascinating to see his/her efforts go on for so long.

Here's some good news, it's 9.25am and the donations to GA's Fund have begun to roll in.

by sallypelt 23.05.15 9:45

I read this thread, yesterday, intermittently throughout the day, and I thought to myself why keep the thread going by responding to him/her. I would have said my piece and after that, I would have said "refer to my early post" because from what I was reading, the thread was just going round in circles.

Rant over spin

by plebgate 24.05.15 18:47

sallypelt wrote:I read this thread, yesterday, intermittently throughout the day, and I thought to myself why keep the thread going by responding to him/her. I would have said my piece and after that, I would have said "refer to my early post" because from what I was reading, the thread was just going round in circles.

Rant over

Yes it was pretty clear what was going on and I think it was a response to onehand's post giving their take on the legal position.

As aquila posted earlier on in the thread, no point trying to argue with a poster like Oxfordbloo - leave it the real lawyers who understand Portugese law.

Anyway as the money is still coming in, it clearly didn't work.

Oxfordbloo blew it.

by **PeterMac** 24.05.15 21:16

Why do they do it ?
Who is paying them to do it ?

They only pick the most sensitive issues
Dogs
Curtains, shutters, window of opportunity
Last Photo
First Photo
Judgment

The ones that really hurt.
And attack and try to disrupt those.
Do we see a pattern emerging ?

by Out of the woods 26.05.15 8:29

I was surprised when OxfordBloo accused me of talking rubbish after I had agreed with one of the main points that he or she was making. However, while I realise that I am in a minority on this, I thought OB made some fair observations re the fact that the judgment was made on the basis of Portuguese law. A Portuguese judge is more likely to be an expert in that than we are. Therefore, a successful appeal is a long way from being a formality

by plebgate 26.05.15 8:38

One Portugese judge ( more likely to be an expert on Pt. law) has already had her original decision overturned by the appeal court judges (banning the book). Whose to say that it wont happen again?

Question is, who was feeding Oxfordbloo, the so called expert analysis on Pt. law? Oxfordbloo would not reveal his sources, therefore I take no notice of posters who are not up front about things.

Latest topics