Oscar Queiros writes on the injustice done to Goncalo Amaral

[seen in another place; the translation could be better but the main points are clear, I think - see paragraphs I have highlighted]



by Óscar Queirós

Censorship has always been a very strong conditioning factor in our culture. Take history and one soon realises that, from very early on, we have been subject to laws that limited freedom of expression. If we are to believe our historians, the gag arrived in Portugal through the hands of the Catholic Church – under the pontificate of Gregory XI – who, at the request of king Dom Fernando, instituted Episcopal censorship.

That was the lever that the Civil Power had been waiting for, and it started regulating opinions, especially written ones, soon afterwards. And the situation lasted until a short while ago, until the end of the regime that we named ' Estado Novo' [New State] and which used Censorship as one of its main pillars, instituting a strict control of the media. But it went further, as it exercised an abominable pressure over the opinion and thought of any one of us. Previous censorship of publications, systematic apprehension of many of them, detentions and imprisonment for those who dared to voice their thoughts; enormities that were so often “legitimated” by courts that, in its majority, operated as one of the repressive arms of those rogues.

Until the [Revolution of the] 25th of April [1974] arrived, and the voices that had been silent for so long (at least since the time of Dom Fernando) exploded. Some say there were abuses. Opinions. A free voice, however foolish, is always better than the sight of a gagged man. And legislation in that sense was issued.

“Tout est bien qui finit bien” [All is well that ends well], we thought, looking back (without nostalgia). You wish. It didn’t take long for us to see that stronger than the written and accepted Law, there was, for example, the tutorship of the English people that had been keeping us as workers on this farm of theirs, for centuries. Some of those bosses came here a while ago, allegedly on holidays. Two of them, a couple, brought three children along, and on a day of drinking – which is to say, a common day for them – only two of those three children were left. The other one, a little girl, disappeared while the parents and friends celebrated, maybe a trip to the supermarket (or any other futile motive that they like to solemnize) with more than ten bottles of wine, a few brandies and other stuff that makes one dizzy. It should be reminded that while this went on, the children were alone in a bedroom, far away from the surveillance of those who had the duty to care for them. But maybe that is only for us peasants that populate this English farm!

Well, moving on: the little girl disappeared, the parents, when they realised it (?) immediately called the televisions (from their own country) and afterwards the police. Years (and many complications) later we continue without knowing what happened to the poor little girl. I should stress that during the investigation, the English (in whose country tens of children disappear every month, and not all of them reappear) found themselves, at a given time, at risk of being, at least, accused of very gross neglect. And in order to prevent that (and possibly worse), they sent their own policemen over, an attitude that was agreed upon by our overseer (you know the name). The problem was that their policemen who came over to meddle in the case, arrived at the same conclusion as our own experts. And as that could not be permitted – even because the little girl’s parents are friends with Her Majesty’s “premier” – they were sent back home, while around here, the peasant who coordinated the investigation was fired. Then, a few more diligences and other trifles were performed (to distract the English and the Portuguese) until the process was shelved.

“The worst is for those who leave”, we use to say around here. Therefore, just accept the fatality, forget about the matter and get back to your drinks.

That was what the excellencies, our bosses, wanted, and therefore we should comply.

But the Portuguese policeman who was forced to abandon the search under orders – it seems to me, directly issued from number 10 at Downing Street – refused to accept the (lack of) resolution for the case. And as being a policeman, he was forbidden to speak about the investigation, he decided to abandon his profession in order to be able to do so. And that was how, already a free man, Gonçalo Amaral wrote down the testimony of what had been discovered through thousands of diligences, many of which were performed outside of the boundaries of this farm that we inhabit.

In the shape of a book, the testimony of what was contained in the inquiry – and only that, without any opinions – was sold by the thousands. Because the vast majority of the peasants that we are, cannot sleep in peace without finding out what happened to the poor little girl. But her parents did not appreciate the “caprice”. And in order to prove that they are still in charge, they asked a Portuguese court to gag Gonçalo Amaral. And while it was at it, it should do what used to be done during those infamous times: it should apprehend the books that were still left.

The court complied. And thus we found out that the thing that is called freedom of expression or the right to an opinion, included in our Constitution as fundamental rights, stop being such, when the interests of two subjects of queen Elizabeth II are so much more fundamental.

We can make a fuss but I don’t know if it’s worth it anymore, because those that we elected to legislate and to ensure our freedom, upon finding out about the very strange and inacceptable decision of the Lisbon court, decided it was best to remain silent…

And those who remain silent, consent!

This decision had at least one merit: it made clear that we continue to be the English people’s farm.

GOOD GOD ALMIGHTY

Friends with the prime minister and called the TV before the police?

This piece appears to have a somewhat inaccurate and bitter tone to it.

I think it's very rude of the author to refer to the people of Portugal as peasants. They are not all peasants.

Who is Oscar? (maybe I should know - but I don't)

http://mariacpois.blogspot.com/

No idea, but for a xenophobic opinion piece that makes odd comparisons between Animal Farm and the case of Madeleine McCann it appears to be printed all over the internet.

Independent Media Production Professional

* consulting offers
* new ventures
* expertise requests
* reference requests
* getting back in touch


http://pt.linkedin.com/pub/oscar-queiros/7/22b/a87

well maybe something got lost in translation. It just sounds like a piece of Amaral propaganda written in a rush.

Not another one?




P.S. Anyone heard how the Save our Saviour fund is doing?

Mmmm, are we getting a little preview of the level of argumentation we will hear at the libel hearing? If so, all I can say is; God help them...

To use their phrases - TICK TOCK and all that !

This all seems to boil down to an argument over the right to freedom of expression of Amaral as a Portuguese citizen, enshrined in article 37 of the Portuguese Constitution. And how dare a bunch of foreigners come in and have the effrontary to use the Portuguese Courts to attempt to curb that right.

But what they do not spell out is what that part of the constitution really says. Once again Morais posts a snipped version.

rockyrobin wrote:But what they do not spell out is what that part of the constitution really says. Once again Morais posts a snipped version.

This one?

1.Everyone shall possess the right to freely express and publicise his thoughts in words, images or by any other means, as well as the right to inform others, inform himself and be informed without hindrance or discrimination 2.Exercise of the said rights shall not be hindered or limited by any type or form of censorship Constitution of the Portuguese Republic, Article 37.º

I do wonder why the rest of it is missed out - puzzling, really.

Article 37

3. Infractions committed in the exercise of the said rights shall be subject to the general principles of the criminal law or the law governing administrative offences, and shall be brought before the courts of law or an independent administrative body respectively, as laid down by law.

4. Every person and body corporate shall be equally and effectively guaranteed the right of reply and to make corrections, as well as the right to compensation for damages suffered.

Once again it is the mushroom effect they all suffer from.

sans_souci wrote:

rockyrobin wrote:But what they do not spell out is what that part of the constitution really says. Once again Morais posts a snipped version.

This one?

1.Everyone shall possess the right to freely express and publicise his thoughts in words, images or by any other means, as well as the right to inform others, inform himself and be informed without hindrance or discrimination 2.Exercise of the said rights shall not be hindered or limited by any type or form of censorship Constitution of the Portuguese Republic, Article 37.º

I do wonder why the rest of it is missed out - puzzling, really.

Article 37

3. Infractions committed in the exercise of the said rights shall be subject to the general principles of the criminal law or the law governing administrative offences, and shall be brought before the courts of law or an independent administrative body respectively, as laid down by law.

4. Every person and body corporate shall be equally and effectively guaranteed the right of reply and to make corrections, as well as the right to compensation for damages suffered.

But then Morais clipping things to suit is not News is it?

Rather Strong Irony in Using an English Author's Work to Propel Forward the Cause of Portuguese Nationalism.

vaguely wrote:Friends with the prime minister and called the TV before the police?

This piece appears to have a somewhat inaccurate and bitter tone to it.

It's exactly the sort of misinformed tosh that has bedevilled the case from the outset. All mixed into that loathsome pottage of poor-little-Portugal patriotism and paranoia we have come to know and loathe.

They can't even be bothered to read the files and find that the claim about Sky being called before the cops was a lie.

A damaging, deliberately planted and deliberately spread lie, imo.

badmanners wrote:

vaguely wrote:Friends with the prime minister and called the TV before the police?

This piece appears to have a somewhat inaccurate and bitter tone to it.

It's exactly the sort of misinformed tosh that has bedevilled the case from the outset. All mixed into that loathsome pottage of poor-little-Portugal patriotism and paranoia we have come to know and loathe.

They can't even be bothered to read the files and find that the claim about Sky being called before the cops was a lie.

A damaging, deliberately planted and deliberately spread lie, imo.

Processos Volume XII

Pages 3885

Witness Statement

Nelson Filipe Pacheco da Costa

Date: 17-10-2007

He comes to the process as a witness, as an officer from the Lagos GNR, he has worked for the Guarda for 13 years.

He confirms the integrity of his previous statements.

Regarding the facts on 3rd May, when he was on patrol with his colleague Roque in the Odiaxere zone, they received a radio communication from the central, telling them to go to P da L, specifically to the OC resort reception where the father of a little girl who had gone missing was. When they were on their way to this place and in the Valverde area, they received a new communication, informing them that this was a very young child and that her father had called again. They continued on their way, now with urgency, heading for the main reception of the resort.

When they arrived they saw the girl’s father, a friend whom the witness describes as tall and blond, an OC employee and a translator who was also an OC employee, named Silvia Baptista.

After hearing about the circumstances of the disappearance (from the father with the help of translation) he does not remember whether the word abduction was mentioned, and he went in his police car, to the apartment, accompanied by the father, the friend and the translator. When he arrived at the apartment he saw that the wooden door, now referred to as the main door, was closed and he thinks someone who he cannot identify opened it. When he entered, there were other individual apart from the mother, he does not know how many but there was at least another couple present.

Then, with his colleague, he searched the apartment. He opened all the cupboards of the bedrooms, living room and kitchen and he checked under the beds and in the fridge. He did not see the washing machine. He did not see anything strange during the search and there was no sign of a break in. As regards the bed clothes of the child’s bed, he found it to have a normal disposition.

He found it notable that when they were still at the main reception, the father kneeled down, laying his head on the ground and crying, at the same time as making an expression which the witness did not understand.

After the search of the interior, his colleague went to check the area around the apartments and the Tapas Bar, while the witness remained next the apartment, just outside it. At that moment a female individual, he does not know whether she was a member of the group of friends, who was in the neighbouring apartment, said that she saw an individual carrying a child, running, and that because of the pyjamas she was wearing it could have been Madeleine. It was in these circumstances that abduction began to be talked about. He made a report about this situation and sent it to the police.

This sighting did not seem to him to be very credible, because when he asked her about the physical characteristics of the individual, she said it was very dark, however she saw the pyjamas clearly.

When asked, he said that at that time he also saw a lot of local people, who were searching for the missing girl.

Whilst he was outside he talked to the witness mentioned previously and to some residents who had not seen anything. He exchanged some words with the mother, who was crying and only asked for more police officers.

When questioned about the bedroom windows, he only remembers that blinds of the window of the girl’s bedroom were not totally closed. He does not remember about the existence of curtains or whether the window itself was closed.

He says that in the apartment there were two beds and two cots placed in Madeleine’s room, he does not remember their position. The children never woke up, he is sure, not knowing what position they were in, however he found this situation to be very strange, as a lot of noise was made.

As regards the parents, he says they were nervous and anxious, emotional. He adds that upon observing the scene it did not appear to him to be an abduction, but rather a normal disappearance where the child had left by her own means.

As regards the living room sofa, next to a curtain, he cannot be sure whether the sofa was against the wall.

He also refers to a situation at about 02 or 03.00, that the parents asked for a priest and his colleague had tried to contact one on his mobile, but did not manage to find one.

He also emphasises the situation that someone, who he cannot identify, having contacted Sky News and the Embassy that night. He does not know if were the parents.
He also notes that he saw various photographs on normal A4 paper of the girl, which had been printed at the reception, as well as other photos on photographic paper, poster type 10x15, that could not have been printed at the reception. This seemed unusual to him and he later confirmed that it was not possible for them to have been printed at the reception.

He has nothing else to add.

Reads, ratifies, signs.
[u][b]

badmanners wrote: They can't even be bothered to read the files and find that the claim about Sky being called before the cops was a lie.

candyfloss wrote:
Nelson Filipe Pacheco da Costa
Date: 17-10-2007
He also emphasises the situation that someone, who he cannot identify, having contacted Sky News and the Embassy that night. He does not know if were the parents.
He has nothing else to add.

Thank you for posting that Candyfloss. It proves Badmanners is right. They didn't call Sky before they called the police. The news was called while the GNR was present.

But did they call Sky?

Fiona PAYNE:
"Reply
'At some point in the evening I was aware that, I think it was really the late hours of the morning, that, erm, I think, was it Rachael who had contacted SKY. Bit I think at that point it was just, we just felt nothing was happening and, you know, you're just desperate wondering what to do. And I think I was aware that at some point, I think SKY News it was or BBC, one or the other, had been called by a member of our group'.
1485
'Right.
Reply
'But not Kate and Gerry, I mean, they didn't'.

RACHEL OLDFIELD
"on the Thursday, a friend of mine, or friends of Matts and mine, Kath and James LANDALE and James LANDALE's a BBC News erm and at the time he was like Political Correspondent, erm I saw him the other night actually reading the news on BBC News 24 but I rang him, or I rang his wife Kath cos I had her mobile number, erm basically to say you know that Madeleine had gone missing, was there any way that we could get it on the news and that was, that was on the Thursday night"

Not even going to bother with this Sky News crap. Sky News have cleared this matter up more than once. THEY WERE NOT CALLED BEFORE THE POLICE !!!!!

PearlB wrote:Not even going to bother with this Sky News crap. Sky News have cleared this matter up more than once. THEY WERE NOT CALLED BEFORE THE POLICE !!!!!

Yes, totally agree, it was Martin Brunt himself who confirmed that this particular piece of misinformation was total fabrication, wasn't it? Like so many other so called "facts" surrounding this investigation.

Perelli wrote:

PearlB wrote:Not even going to bother with this Sky News crap. Sky News have cleared this matter up more than once. THEY WERE NOT CALLED BEFORE THE POLICE !!!!!

Yes, totally agree, it was Martin Brunt himself who confirmed that this particular piece of misinformation was total fabrication, wasn't it? Like so many other so called "facts" surrounding this investigation.

I also recall Ian Woods a Sky Reporter dismissing it as nonsense.

Fiona PAYNE:
"Reply
'At some point in the evening I was aware that, I think it was really the late hours of the morning, that, erm, I think, was it Rachael who had contacted SKY. Bit I think at that point it was just, we just felt nothing was happening and, you know, you're just desperate wondering what to do. And I think I was aware that at some point, I think SKY News it was or BBC, one or the other, had been called by a member of our group'.
1485
'Right.
Reply
'But not Kate and Gerry, I mean, they didn't'.

RACHEL OLDFIELD
"on the Thursday, a friend of mine, or friends of Matts and mine, Kath and James LANDALE and James LANDALE's a BBC News erm and at the time he was like Political Correspondent, erm I saw him the other night actually reading the news on BBC News 24 but I rang him, or I rang his wife Kath cos I had her mobile number, erm basically to say you know that Madeleine had gone missing, was there any way that we could get it on the news and that was, that was on the Thursday night"
Molly


Posts: 170
Join date: 2009-12-07



[b][b][b]

Bit of a discrepancy in the two statements there. FP stating SKY were phoned in late hours of Friday morning 4th May and RO stating she phone BBC Thrusday night 3rd May. The confusion probably arose because FP said RO phoned SKY when in fact she had phoned BBC. Considering there were only 2 hours of Thursday night left and police didn't arrive or weren't called straight away it is a close run thing. And why would you call the media anyway, it might scare an abductor and make them harm the child.

ETA Surely you would take police advice on this first, something as important as the life of your child, and we know the police were against this

Stuck in a foreign Country I think I'd panic and call anyone and everyone. Lets be honest, god forbid if it happened to you or me WTF would we do? Where would we start? I'd want EVERYONE and ANYONE to know that my child had been taken. We also have to take into consideration the absolute shock and horror state that they would have been in.

PearlB wrote:Stuck in a foreign Country I think I'd panic and call anyone and everyone. Lets be honest, god forbid if it happened to you or me WTF would we do? Where would we start? I'd want EVERYONE and ANYONE to know that my child had been taken. We also have to take into consideration the absolute shock and horror state that they would have been in.

I don't think I would have made so many phone calls, worried everyone etc., after all she could have wandered off and been found very quickly. But to be on the phone ring as you say everyone and anyone seems a bit strange. I think I would have been out searching.......

candyfloss wrote:

PearlB wrote:Stuck in a foreign Country I think I'd panic and call anyone and everyone. Lets be honest, god forbid if it happened to you or me WTF would we do? Where would we start? I'd want EVERYONE and ANYONE to know that my child had been taken. We also have to take into consideration the absolute shock and horror state that they would have been in.

I don't think I would have made so many phone calls, worried everyone etc., after all she could have wandered off and been found very quickly. But to be on the phone ring as you say everyone and anyone seems a bit strange. I think I would have been out searching.......

I come from a large family and in my despair would have called them.....and it would have been like spaghetti junction on the mobile phone lines .If your family can't be physically with you, the mobile phone is the only option. I see nothing wrong at all with keeping family informed minute by minute, mine would have wanted to be.

candyfloss wrote:

PearlB wrote:Stuck in a foreign Country I think I'd panic and call anyone and everyone. Lets be honest, god forbid if it happened to you or me WTF would we do? Where would we start? I'd want EVERYONE and ANYONE to know that my child had been taken. We also have to take into consideration the absolute shock and horror state that they would have been in.

I don't think I would have made so many phone calls, worried everyone etc., after all she could have wandered off and been found very quickly. But to be on the phone ring as you say everyone and anyone seems a bit strange. I think I would have been out searching.......

Eh? Did you not just establish that neither parent phoned Sky or BBC, are you implying that they are now responsible for phone calls made by OTHER people?

Are you talking to me Perelli, we were talking about the parents making so many phone calls that night to family and friends.

candyfloss wrote:Are you talking to me Perelli, we were talking about the parents making so many phone calls that night to family and friends.

Sorry, sorry, my mistake, I thought it was the allegation that the parents had called Sky News before they called the police that was being debunked (didn't read properly)