Re: Book Ban Overturned

by Judge Mental 24.10.10 8:46

@ aiyoyo

Peripherals such as Metodo 3 and Halligen simply have to be investigated. Public money was entrusted to the McCanns fund because they thought it was helping to find Madeleine. People have to be held to account for the astronomical amounts of money that were paid out to hoodlums and con artists.

by **Jill Havern** 24.10.10 9:00

Investigated by who, though? Shockingly, no police force seems interested in the crimes committed in this case.

by Judge Mental 24.10.10 9:18

jkh wrote:Investigated by who, though? Shockingly, no police force seems interested in the crimes committed in this case.

Indeed it is shocking that the police are so reluctant to investigate any of the criminals in this case. Halligen is a sitting duck, yet Team McCann have not brought any action against him.

Because of this matter, one felt it only right and proper to volunteer one's services to the Home Office, on the condition that one may use one's own team of people without interference from the Leicester constabulary or New Scotland Yard.

by Guest 24.10.10 14:59

The full ruling on the appeal and overturning of the book ban by the Lisbon court can now be read on Joana's site

http://joana-morais.blogspot.com/2010/10/lisbon-appeals-court-ruling.html

by Guest 24.10.10 15:03

[quote] from above link [snipped]

In possession of that new data, and crossing it with the data that had been collected before, the Portuguese authorities, Public Ministry and PJ, tried to perform a reconstitution of the facts, they did and tried everything, but due to the lack of availability of the McCann couple and their friends, who did not show up, said diligence could not be performed and those facts remain to be clarified.

Concerning that matter, it is written in the final dispatch that “(…) despite the fact that the national authorities took all measures to render their travelling to Portugal possible, due to motives that are unknown, after the many doubts that they raised concerning the need and the opportunity of their travelling were clarified several times, they chose not to show up, which rendered the diligence impossible to perform.

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 (…)”.

In any case, the fact is that the indications that were mentioned above were sufficient to make the McCann couple arguidos.

Book Ban Overturned - Page 6 890363

by littlepixie 24.10.10 15:09

Candyfloss, that bit about them not proving their innocence stuck out to me too. Maybe it should be sent to the Guardian Book Ban Overturned - Page 6 110921

by Guest 24.10.10 15:13

And this bit

[snipped from link in above post]

What is certain is that since the start of the investigation, there were incongruent and even contradictory situations concerning the witness statements, the telephone records of calls that were made and received on mobile phones that belonged to the couple and to the group of friends that were on holidays with them, the movements of people right after the disappearance of the little girl was noticed, concerning the state in which the bedroom from where the child disappeared from was found (closed window? open window? partially open window?), etc., and the mystery would only become even thicker due to the clues that were left by the aforementioned sniffer dogs.

by aiyoyo 24.10.10 15:58

extract from JM's blog

Concerning this matter, the Civil Code establishes as follows:

Article 80
(Right to reservation over the intimacy of private life)
1. Everyone must maintain the reservation over someone else’s intimacy of private life.
2. The extent of reservation is defined according to the nature of the case and the persons’ condition.

Article 81
(Voluntary limitation of personality rights)
1. All voluntary limitation of the exercise of personality rights is null if it is contrary to the principles of public order.
2. The voluntary limitation, whenever legal, is always revocable, although with the obligation to indemnify any damages that were caused to legitimate expectations of the other party.

We conclude that the applicants voluntarily decided to limit their right to the intimacy of private life, certainly envisaging higher values like the discovery of their daughter Madeleine’s whereabouts, but upon voluntarily limiting that right, they opened the doors for other people to give their opinion about the case, in syntony with what they were saying, but also possibly in contradiction with their directions, yet always within the bounds of a legitimate and constitutionally consecrated right to opinion and freedom of expression of thought.

We do not see that the right of the book’s author, the defendant, can be limited by a right to the reservation of intimacy that suffered voluntary limitations by their holders, the applicants.

In the same way, concerning the applicants’ right to image and a good name: upon placing the case in the public square and giving it worldwide notoriety, the applicants opened all doors to all opinions, even those that are adversarial to them.

In any case, we understand that the allegation of facts that are profusely contained in the judicial inquiry and that were even published through an initiative of the Republic’s Attorney General’s Office, can in no way be seen as an offence against the right to image and a good name of the subjects in the process.

Finally, concerning the damage to the right to usufruct from the penal process’ guarantees, namely the right to a fair investigation and the right to freedom and safety, we still cannot understand how it is possible for said rights to be offended by the contents of a book that describes facts from the investigation, although it parts from the interpretation that the Public Ministry’s Magistrates made of those facts, yet offering based, solidly built and logical interpretations.

We thus reach a point where it seems to be important to stress the following: the indicative facts that led to the applicants’ constitution as arguidos within the inquiry were later on not valued by the Public Ministry’s Magistrates in order to lead to a criminal accusation, but those very same facts, seen through another prism and with another base, may lead to a different conclusion from that which was attained by those same Magistrates – those are indications that were deemed to be insufficient in terms of evidence in a criminal investigation, but they can be appreciated in a different way, in an interpretation that is legitimate to be published as a literary work, as long as said interpretation does not offend any fundamental rights of anyone involved – and we have written above already why we understand that said interpretation does not offend the applicants’ rights.

In summary:

The book at stake in this process – “Maddie – the Truth of the Lie” – which was written by the defendant Dr. Gonçalo Amaral, has the main motivation of defending his personal and professional honour, as the author points out right away in the preface and throughout his text.

The contents of the book does not offend any of the applicants’ fundamental rights.

The exercise of its writing and publication is included in the constitutional rights that are secured to everyone by the European Convention on Human Rights and by the Portuguese Republic’s Constitution, namely in its articles 37 and 38.

As we arrive at this point, we conclude that the decision that was made by the Court a quo must be revoked, and the analysis of the other issues that are placed under appeal are not justified, as they are considered prejudiced.

The appeal by defendant Dr. Gonçalo Amaral is sustained.

The other appeals are not taken into consideration, as it is understood that their appreciation is prejudiced – article 660, number 2, of the Civil Process Code.

III – Decision

In harmony with what is written above, under the terms of the cited dispositions, the Judges at this Appeals Court declare the validity of the appeal filed by defendant Dr. Gonçalo Amaral, and the sentence of the Court a quo is revoked, its disposition replaced by the following:

The injunction is deemed not valid because it was not proved.

Furthermore we deliberate that we do not acknowledge the rest of the appeals.

Costs to be paid by the appealed parties.

Lisbon and Appeals Court, 14.10.2010

I like this part best as it explains clearly why the mccanns' applications to their various rights could not be maintained.

by Guest 24.10.10 16:09

This ruling is good because Mr Amaral can now talk freely about the book and he will be able to quote directly some of the passages quoted by the 3 appeal court judges that give the reasons why the ban was overturned. That it was all true and factual from the case files. Many more people will get to know what has been kept from them by the papers and the media Book Ban Overturned - Page 6 636506

by aiyoyo 24.10.10 18:09

The thing I dont understand is how will a countersue work?

Jumping the gun a bit here - presumably the suit will have to be filed in UK which will mean if the mccanns refused to settle without a fight, a hearing will ensue.
Does that mean witnesses will be summoned?
Is Amaral getting his wish to have the mccanns in court and best of all in UK court where it will all be aired unrestricted once and for all for the UK public? hmmmmm Book Ban Overturned - Page 6 234726

I cant see the mccanns paying without a fight. And if they brave an appearance in court, the risk factors are tilted very high mccanns' direction. They have plenty at stake, and not Amaral.

by tosca 26.10.10 11:01

Hello everyone..great news, is this the start of the decline of the McCann empire ...Oh I do hope so, interesting times ahead, watching and waiting pop2

by **Jill Havern** 26.10.10 11:06

Tosca and welcome

I do hope so Book Ban Overturned - Page 6 342142

by Guest 26.10.10 11:17

tosca, and welcome

by tosca 26.10.10 11:45

Thank you for welcoming me, it's lovely to be here to support Amaral and his cause. woohooo

by aiyoyo 26.10.10 13:58

Sunday Express - 24 October 2010
A BANNED book about the Madeleine McCann case by a former Portuguese detective is set to be sold in Britain.

A court in Lisbon has overruled a decision to forbid the sale of Goncalo Amaral's controversial Maddie: The Truth Of The Lie.

Kate and Gerry McCann, the parents of missing Madeleine, got the ban earlier this year.

Mr Amaral, who led the hunt for Madeleine in its first five months, alleges in a book and DVD that Madeleine died in the McCanns' Algarve apartment.

Madeleine vanished while on holiday in Praia da Luz in 2007 when she was three years old. Mr Amaral's wife Sofia Leal said: "We believe there would be a great deal of interest in the book."

A family friend said the McCanns were "absolutely furious" and vowed to continue with a £1million libel suit against Mr Amaral.

Saw that on the site across the road.

The mccanns are livid as USUAL! Any surprise?
Their emotion are limited to 'furious' 'livid' 'enrage' 'roaring like a bull' .....any thing new?

They are always ANGRY, ANGRY, ANGRY!!!

Poor Madeleine......no wonder!

by tiny 26.10.10 14:26

yes Aiyoyo,allways angry as you say and i think this anger had something to do with madeleines last day on earth.
but this bit i do like,
A family friend said the McCanns were "absolutely furious" and vowed to continue with a £1million libel suit against Mr Amaral.
i cant wait for the day this libel suit starts Book Ban Overturned - Page 6 609562

, as i believe Mr Amaral has an ace or two up his sleeve

by **Tony Bennett** 26.10.10 14:42

tiny wrote:Yes Aiyoyo, always angry as you say and I think this anger had something to do with Madeleine's last day on earth, but this bit I do like, "A family friend said..."

Just wondering...

Could this 'family friend' be the same as...

'a source close to the McCanns' and the same as

'a source close to the investigation' and the same as

'a source close to the McCanns' legal team' and the same as

'a family pal' and the same as

'a friend of the McCanns' and the same as

'a McCann family spokesman' and the same as

'a family spokesman' and the same as, er...

Mr Clarence Mitchell, who was the

Director of the government's 40-strong Media Monitoring Unit whose job it was 'to control what comes out in the media, and who was

employed at Freud Communications by Rupert Murdoch's son-in-law and who

worked as deputy to Conservative Party Director of Communications Andy Coulson during the recent General Election campaign

and of whom Carlos Anjos, Head of the Lawyers' Association in Portugal, once said:

He lies with as many teeth as he has in his mouth?

by tosca 26.10.10 16:13

Tony Bennett wrote:
tiny wrote:Yes Aiyoyo, always angry as you say and I think this anger had something to do with Madeleine's last day on earth, but this bit I do like, "A family friend said..."
Just wondering...

Could this 'family friend' be the same as...

'a source close to the McCanns' and the same as

'a source close to the investigation' and the same as

'a source close to the McCanns' legal team' and the same as

'a family pal' and the same as

'a friend of the McCanns' and the same as

'a McCann family spokesman' and the same as

'a family spokesman' and the same as, er...

Mr Clarence Mitchell, who was the

Director of the government's 40-strong Media Monitoring Unit whose job it was 'to control what comes out in the media, and who was

employed at Freud Communications by Rupert Murdoch's son-in-law and who

worked as deputy to Conservative Party Director of Communications Andy Coulson during the recent General Election campaign

and of whom Carlos Anjos, Head of the Lawyers' Association in Portugal, once said:

He lies with as many teeth as he has in his mouth?

Hi Tony,

That'll be him lol!

by **Tony Bennett** 26.10.10 16:33

tosca wrote:
Tony Bennett wrote:
tiny wrote:Yes Aiyoyo, always angry as you say and I think this anger had something to do with Madeleine's last day on earth, but this bit I do like, "A family friend said..."
Just wondering...

Could this 'family friend' be the same as...

MANY ALTERNATIVE DESCRIPTONS SNIPPED

He lies with as many teeth as he has in his mouth?

Hi Tony, That'll be him

He is such a coy little Clarence, isn't he?

Or - maybe - he just doesn't want some of his classic soundbites to come back and haunt him one day.

Have you noticed how often Clarence Mitchell is quoted in the same article as 'a source close to the McCanns' etc?

The media do it to impress their readers, it sounds as though the McCanns have got loads of friends and 'sources close to them' etc. etc.

by aiyoyo 26.10.10 17:42

Well, it looks as though the lawyers have told the 'source/s close to the family' to shut his gob and stop the spin!

It was media exposure that attributed to part of the decisions of the ruling, Right to Privacy not upheld because they forfeited it themselves.

Not a peep out of him. What else can he say?

This final ruling could well be the start of ruination for mccanns, as the ruling will no doubt be taken into account by presiding judge at libel trial. This is a nail in mccanns' coffin.

by aiyoyo 26.10.10 17:52

tiny wrote:yes Aiyoyo,allways angry as you say and i think this anger had something to do with madeleines last day on earth.
but this bit i do like,
A family friend said the McCanns were "absolutely furious" and vowed to continue with a £1million libel suit against Mr Amaral.
i cant wait for the day this libel suit starts , as i believe Mr Amaral has an ace or two up his sleeve

Even if Amaral does not have an ace or two up his sleeve, the mccanns are on dangerous ground, in fact quicksand.
This latest ruling is fatal to the libel trial because the fundamental charges in defamation are same as injuction. And all the fundamentations were well covered by the three judges with the resultant strongly worded verdict leaving no ground for Mccanns team to pick flaw on.

Isabel Duarte will be sweating for her money, and it may be the case that will demote her credentials and undo her formidable reputation.

by tiny 26.10.10 18:24

put it like that the mccanns are f***** then Book Ban Overturned - Page 6 110921

justice is a coming to Madeleine at long last Book Ban Overturned - Page 6 609562

by tosca 26.10.10 19:08

Tony Bennett wrote:
tosca wrote:
Tony Bennett wrote:
tiny wrote:Yes Aiyoyo, always angry as you say and I think this anger had something to do with Madeleine's last day on earth, but this bit I do like, "A family friend said..."
Just wondering...

Could this 'family friend' be the same as...

MANY ALTERNATIVE DESCRIPTONS SNIPPED

He lies with as many teeth as he has in his mouth?

Hi Tony, That'll be him
He is such a coy little Clarence, isn't he?

Or - maybe - he just doesn't want some of his classic soundbites to come back and haunt him one day.

Have you noticed how often Clarence Mitchell is quoted in the same article as 'a source close to the McCanns' etc?

The media do it to impress their readers, it sounds as though the McCanns have got loads of friends and 'sources close to them' etc. etc.

Nice spinning to those who don't or can't think outside of the box!

by Guest 28.10.10 22:48

Interview with Mr Amaral on Joana's site.

http://joana-morais.blogspot.com/2010/10/who-will-take-responsibility-for-amaral.html

This is the most interesting bit for me

[snipped]

GA - Nowadays I have no doubts left, the archival for various reasons, was mainly due to political pressures made by the English - I have no doubts about that. (cut) The investigation will be concluded, it will be re-opened and it will be taken to an end; and justice will be made, that is all that we want.

Book Ban Overturned - Page 6 609562

ETA - He sounds very positive doesn't he. Does he know something?

by Judge Mental 28.10.10 22:59

@ candyfloss

From what Amaral is saying, it rather sounds as if he is as confident as we are that this case will eventually be brought to a most satisfactory conclusion.

One would recommend that many more spinning wheels are placed on Team McCann's Christmas wish list Book Ban Overturned - Page 6 110921

by Big Vern 29.10.10 1:21

Incredible that the BBC never reported the lifting of the ban.
I emailed to ask why but have had no reply so far.

by Autumn 29.10.10 1:55

Good for you Big Vern though II wouldn't hold your breath for a reply thumbsup

Nice to see another new face here, welcome aboard :yahoo:

by Big Vern 29.10.10 2:14

I also emailed the Daily Mail to ask why their silence...especially as they had featured the ban itself so prominently a year earlier....again, no reply.
To me, the blatantly obvious part that 99% of the UK media are playing in perpetually supporting the McCanns is just as disturbing as the child's demise.

by Shibboleth 29.10.10 7:42

Here is something even more disturbing. The BIG McCann news on Sky is that the McCanns have "launched a new German website".

Actually it's just the existing website, run through Google Translate. It is full of spelling and grammatical mistakes. I am quite sure that the German people are very appreciative for this mangled version of the Official Website, especially as many German people can speak English anyway. The PayPal button is there, of course. ("Spenden Sie jetzt mit PayPal").

But Martin Brunt devotes a whole section of his blog to this rubbish.

There is not one word - not even one - about the overturning of the book ban, the fact that Goncalo Amaral can now speak freely, that this case has probably cost the McCanns tens of thousands of Euros, and they are still not off the hook.

I have given up even wondering WHY.

by Big Vern 29.10.10 11:20

But why??
How do these people sleep at night?
They are surely not stupid...they HAVE to arrive at the same conclusion as us presented with the same facts. It can only be that they know full well what they are doing. They are helping to keep an innocent child in her unmarked grave and those responsible free.
WHY????