McCanns v Amaral trial is NOT LIBEL!

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

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.

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

http://translate.google.co.uk/translate?hl=en&sl=pt&u=http://www.dgaep.gov.pt/index.cfm%3FOBJID%3D91f17207-d63e-4f78-a525-4e8140f46f49%26ID%3D2&prev=search

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

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

http://translate.google.co.uk/translate?hl=en&sl=pt&u=http://www.dgaep.gov.pt/index.cfm%3FOBJID%3D91f17207-d63e-4f78-a525-4e8140f46f49%26ID%3D2&prev=search

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

BlueBag wrote:

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

http://translate.google.co.uk/translate?hl=en&sl=pt&u=http://www.dgaep.gov.pt/index.cfm%3FOBJID%3D91f17207-d63e-4f78-a525-4e8140f46f49%26ID%3D2&prev=search

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.

OxfordBloo wrote:

BlueBag wrote:

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

http://translate.google.co.uk/translate?hl=en&sl=pt&u=http://www.dgaep.gov.pt/index.cfm%3FOBJID%3D91f17207-d63e-4f78-a525-4e8140f46f49%26ID%3D2&prev=search

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."

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?

http://translate.google.co.uk/translate?hl=en&sl=pt&u=http://www.dgaep.gov.pt/index.cfm%3FOBJID%3D91f17207-d63e-4f78-a525-4e8140f46f49%26ID%3D2&prev=search

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?

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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 (...)".

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.

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.

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.

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

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.