A eureka moment

eurekaThere I was relaxing in the bath, surrounded by bubbles and rose scented candles, when all of a sudden I had a eureka moment.

Anyway now I am dried and dressed, I thought I would share my eureka moment and throw something into the pot about the Preliminary Hearings that are due to be heard on the 21st September 2011 in Portugal, with regards to the libel trial of McCanns -v- Defendents x 4.

According to the ruling of the Court lifting the ban on Amarals book it states this:

At the judicial circuit of Lisbon

Kate Marie Healey McCann,
Gerald Patrick McCann,
Madeleine Beth McCann​,
S*** M****** McCann and
A***** *** McCann

Have filed an unspecified injunction against:

Gonçalo de Sousa Amaral,
Guerra e Paz, Editores, SA
VC – Valentim de Carvalho – Filmes, Audiovisuais, SA and
TVI – Televisão Independente, SA
Have filed an unspecified injunction against:

Just reading that Judgement and it is not just Goncalo Amaral the McCanns are taking to court it is 3 other defendants as well, those being VC,  TVI along with the publishers of the book.

Well my eureka moment came after the news tonight that the family of Milly Dowler could have settled for a deal from News International that could be worth 3 million pounds with 1 million pound of that  being donated to a charity by cheque that is going to be written by Rupert Murdoch himself.

Of course people like to settle out of court because if they do go to court and lose then they will have to pay costs.  Now I know companies are about making profit and any firms lawyers, will advise Company directors to settle out of court.  Simply because it could and probably would  be cheaper.

Well we know that even though Goncalo’s book is now allowed to be sold, there has been no news from Guerra e Paz with regards to them collecting and redistributing the books.  Well doesn’t that seem odd to you?  After all they have paid for all these books to be printed, shipped and still they have not put them on the shelves to try and recoup loss of sales.

As I said in the book of myths post:

The Appeals Court agreed with Gonçalo Amaral, and that was a “beautiful moment” that was used to plan the future. “The books remain illegally with their keeper, the McCanns’ lawyer, and I doubt that they still exist. Now, it is up to Guerra e Paz to ensure that the Appeals Court’s decision concerning the book ‘Maddie – The Truth of the Lie’ is fulfilled.” All in all, “over 120 000 copies have been sold”, and the book was translated for France, Italy, the Netherlands, Germany and Denmark.

Well let us be honest, there would be certain crowing from certain quarters if these books were back on the shelves wouldn’t there?

Now back to my ‘eureka’ moment, we all know that when Tony Bennett capitulated to Carter Ruck that he had to undertake not to accuse the McCanns of being complicit in what happened to their daughter along with other things.

For arguments sake, what would happen if  Guerra e Pez, TVI and VC have decided to settle out of court?  How would this affect Goncalo Amarals case if they admit that the book and the documentary was libellous and have undertaken to donate a substantial amount to the Find Madeleine Fund and promise not to repeat, just like the Express group did?

Could the McCann lawyers also put in a stipulation that they will also undertake not to be witnesses for Goncalo Amaral?  And how could he hope to win if 3 out of the 4 defendants admit that the book and documentary was libellous and defamatory?


60 comments on “A eureka moment

  1. Good day!I have the impression that it is the first time that shocks me Bren.We know we’re in two different barricades. So this is nothing new.Shocked me happiness included in Eureka and all that is implied.Everything good in spite of this explosion of happiness against Portugal and Portuguese citizens.However, I think the Bren understand my shock.

  2. For here there is complete silence on the Maddie Casebecause “we” have a ban ordered by those who do not know. Here it isforbidden to speak!Some of these I do not know how many have implemented thecensorship, the retaliation. In short, the they do not know howimplemented fascism here and in the case.Here, news are prohibited; on TV can not speak in the name ofMadeleine and also about no one gives any news but even askdirectly.Bren brings me to two conclusions:you know something through His knowledge;and that everything is being resolved out of public knowledge of the Portuguese secret and secret negotiations.To the Portuguese did not know and do not help those who need help here;For the British do not know that the couple loses again.So that the case finish

  3. Mcr49, I do hope this is over for the McCann family.  As much as it might shock you and others, yes it was a Eureka moment for me hoping this could could be the case.  Especially after reading the case files.  All this added to the fact when I read Kate’s book, the more and more I realised that things that were negative against Goncalo Amaral were not getting reported.

    Like Sandra Felgueira interview that,was supposed to be critical of GA after she read the files, never being translated.

    Like us all being kept in the dark about him being made an arguido on the 4th May 2007, not even 24 hours after Madeleine disappeared.  Come on Mcr9, some people have not been told the full story, only selected parts.

    It is when you find the other parts, the parts that some people try to hide that is when you get many ‘Eureka’ moments and ‘WTF’ moments, as your eyes are opened wide.

    The email between PJ Reis and another forum owner, stating categorically there was no evidence in the car and it was said to make journalists bite and they sure as hell did.

    Do you think that is right?  You can’t invent evidence and to this day there are still people running around with this idea that the ‘Death Scent’ was in the car, bodily fluids of Madeleine were in the car.  When the forensic reports says there was not.

    If there is the chance even the remotest chance, which there is, that Madeleine could be alive, she doesn’t deserve for people to write her off as dead and tell the world to make them believe she is dead.

    Apart from being legally wrong that is morally wrong as well.  Yes back in those days, I believe all the spin that was out there, every single piece of misinformation that was thrown out about the McCanns and how nasty and complicit they were. 

    It is not about being on sides, there is only one side and that is Madeleine’s.  GA, had a choice he chose to write that book, he chose to retire, nobody forced him, or did they?

    Did he realise that if convicted of perjury, falsifying documents like he has been he would have been fired?

    Sorry if you are shocked, but I was just as shocked when I started to read the truth.

  4. I’ve read many criticisms of the book K. McC. 
    Everyone was surprised by the Portuguese authorities not to sue.
    Private ….. unfortunately can not for lack of money. Here, someone is very expensive process and takes years. 
    Action against someone who is not from Portugal, would be more expensive and complicated. Only a super-millionaire can do that.And the super millionaire ever interested in a citizen of Portugal? 
    GA was dismissed after 28 years of hard work, vent about interference by the British. 
    The case is very strange, the Madeleine, it puts people of high social circles. What amazes everyone! Having a picture of Gerry with the soles of shoes routes, before the Fund …. 
    Sandra Felgueiras and GA: What interview? It’s the connection? I’ve been looking and I see the interview translated into English. 
    If you lack some may ask: 

     P. Silva E, also have o. …. MAC. 
    Many files are closed and do not come to light. 
    As for e-mail between PR and anyone else he alone can answer about this PR. 
    I believe totally in the Portuguese version. 
    You mix two cases of force. 
    Poor Madeleine if he had the same thing happened to Joan, neglected, sexually abused, would likely be sold for sexual predators and criminals receiving money for such acts but then cut into pieces and thrown as food to pigs or squished in a scrap metal . 
    In response, I realize that you like  the past. 
    I’m worried about the present and future of a Portuguese family slain by an English couple, aided by a huge team of people.     Of which, some, don´t mind to to sell herself. 
    Thank You by the answer but the dialogue is impossible between us; because we feel and believe different…. 

  5. I am sorry you feel that dialogue can no longer continue.  Of course that is your prerogative how I would like to correct you on one point Goncalo was dismissed from the case, he was not dismissed from the Police he retired.

    It was his choice to leave the PJ.  As for the interview I can remember someone posting up about it on MCF they had watched the Portuguese interview and gave a synopsis of what was said.

    And if my memory serves me correctly they said that Sandra was rather shocked after she read the files.

  6. However it does seem to me, that nothing can be said about Goncalo Amaral in a negative light but we do have to sit back and see dedicated coppers smeared and tarnished.  Call it being a patriotic or what, but I am slightly sick of hearing how every UK copper and force is supposed to be corrupt.

    I know there are a load of good, honest and decent coppers out there, that would never be corrupt or accept a bribe. 

    Sorry Mcr9 if this was a British Officer I would be saying the same, he was made an arguido on the 4th May 2007 due to allegations that arose from the Cipriano case and therefore he should not have been put in control of the Madeleine case.

  7. There is everything everywhere.There are right and those who do not pay, around the world;The May 4 may have been made ​​defendants, but was well aware that in order to investigate. And he was acquitted. The rest is the work of MAC.  Negative things about a Portuguese family destroyed, no, notaccepted.Of course, each one of us tries to defend her. I get it.I’m sorry for not knowing English in order to write more in response.My position still stands, already know that.What I do not accept is to destroy people with serious illness andwish that the treatments do not result. I asked to withdraw the article. Was modified. On this day, recently, I took the position ofA. Racxxx.But we had the R. Mendick …… about G. many of the Incarnation and on another person. This is not accepted. Then I can be on both sides.As for the forbidden and Research on the difficulties created aPortuguese family, just being on this side.As for your …. this side …….. can not.About Madeleine always had very sorry and hurting for her.Always. And when I see pictures of her, I still move me.These cases are so sad. One of many.There is everything everywhere.

    There are right and those who do not pay, around the world;

    The May 4 may have been made ​​defendants, but was well aware that in order to investigate. And he was acquitted. The rest is the work of MAC.

      Negative things about a Portuguese family destroyed, no, notaccepted.

    Of course, each one of us tries to defend her. I get it.

    I’m sorry for not knowing English in order to write more in response.

    My position still stands, already know that.

    What I do not accept is to destroy people with serious illness andwish that the treatments do not result. I asked to withdraw the article. Was modified. On this day, recently, I took the position ofA. Racxxx.

    But we had the R. Mendick …… about G. many of the Incarnation and on another person. This is not accepted. Then I can be on both sides.

    As for the forbidden and Research on the difficulties created aPortuguese family, just being on this side.

    As for your …. this side …….. can not.

    About Madeleine always had very sorry and hurting for her.Always. And when I see pictures of her, I still move me.

    These cases are so sad. One of many.Maria

  8. Very probably i can not come here today more but , like always, thank you by the answers.

    We are in different fields and uphold the opposite.

    Stay well and regards,


  9. We can dialogue but the problem is each other thinks very different .

    GA he was dismissed . Remember Alípio Ribeiro.

    About what You says Sandra. I don´t know nothing. Can You provide more information, please?

    We can write here to each-other  but always we are not in tune.

    Some words are bigger because come from goole translator. 

  10. http://aeiou.expresso.pt/desde-o-dia-que-sai-soube-que-o-processo-ia-ser-arquivado=f358829

    Sorry but is in portuguese and like You know my english is not english. I can not translate. 

    Pressions on GA to dismiss also. Think about You ( or me) pression, insults and more. Nobody liked it. 

    I am curious about Sandra. 

    But the journos, if they wish work, must obey . The Mcs silented her also.


  11. I found the screen shot of the post taken from MCF where the synopsis of the Sandra interview

  12. Good morning. I will stay here only few moments because i have a lot of things to do in and out of home. 

    The crime scene was contaminated by Tapas and Couple more workers OC and all people who wish to ” help”. It was proposal. 

    If M. ” disappeared” early and they only call help GNR about 10 p.m or more They have all time to make at least 2 timelines and contaminated the scene.

    The screenshot don´t help me much. Can You give me the link to the interview, because are so much.

    Seems 2 faces from same scenario . I am sure You can help more .

    Have a nice day and help me, please, to i understand what You wish .

      I never was in any forums. 



  13. Morning Maria,

    I don’t know what interview it was, but it was on Portugal TV and it was being discussed on Maddie Case Files.  I am not a member there so I can’t find the name of the interview unfortunately.

    But the person posted the message said they had watched it and they gave a brief synopsis of what the programme was about.

    Sorry I can’t help you any further.

  14. Hello, again. I will tried to search. They are so many vídeos with Sandra. Super before is menaced by the Mcs…. Now She is in a better place. She is very strong.
    And i beleive she don´t like the Mcs. She was obliged to ” interview” like they wish.
    Later…… but many , a lot…. are translated to english. 
    Now i had no time. 

    Can You know when? The day ?The year ? 



  15. I think it was last year sometime.  Sorry I don’t know the exact date and I can’t search on MCF as I am not a member.

  16. Taken from elsewhere

    Many thanks to Bonny for reposting Miffed’s summary of the TV interview with Sandra Felgueiras.

    And thanks to Miffed (otherwise no one who had not seen the live interview would have known anything about it).

    – since this is an insert in a talk show programme in Portuguese, with
    no English subtitles, I can see that it’s no easy task to get this
    footage on here.

    From memory, Sandra Felgueiras acknowledges the
    difficulty of asking pertinent questions when she is face to face
    withthe people concerned- but these questions need to be asked and she
    somehow manages to do that. The McCanns had to be asked pertinent
    questions as they seemed to have been able to avoid them whilst in
    Portugal and a year after their arguido status lifted, the questions
    were overdue. Sandra is critical of the investigation for various
    reasons: the apartment having been invaded in the early hours, the PJ
    not having secured the crime scene. The interviewers did say this was
    because they PJ were following the abduction scenario, and Sandra
    responded it’s still not an excuse.

    Sandra also mentioned that
    journalists were led to suspect the McCanns. When the case files became
    public, she literally made a beeline to the one page where FSS spoke
    about the 17 out of 19 markers and how it could easily be assumed it was
    indeed Madeleine’s DNA. She then goes on to talk about the very next
    paragraph where the forensic specialist cautioned that this DNA could
    belong to a large proportion of the population (smiley). This was a
    shocking revelation for her. The dogs were mentioned – that they smelt
    cadaver odour and blood after the crime scene had been contaminated by
    so many people as well as the apartment having been let out. Portugal
    placed itself in a precarious position in the eyes of the British by
    suspecting the McCanns on such apparently flimsy evidence when this
    could have been avoided.

    ETA – they also spoke about Goncalo
    Amaral’s motives – and her response is that only he knows what his
    motives are. It still does not make him right or wrong in his
    assumptions. She acknowledges the very bad time he went through – losing
    his position in the PJ, etc.

  17. Thank you for that  Samantha.  So it was miffed that posted it, I only had the actual post not who posted it. 

  18. It waas possibly around Nov. 2009

    • God I didn’t realise it was that long ago.  And if it was posted by miffed on MCF then I will take it as being truthful and as what miffed heard from the TV programme.

      But what does amaze me is this, there is that email that Reis was supposed to have written, why has he never denied it on his blog or come out saying it has been fabricated?  Why has no-one questioned him outright as to the authenticity of that email?

      Could it be they know the contents are true?

  19. Anonymous said…
    The transcript by ‘Miffed’ of the interviw
    with SF is on the above link. This is posted everywhere but where it should be
    and that is on Joanans blog. Why she has chosen to refuse posters this article
    only she can say.Her credibility is now in question.Does she not realise that SF
    has read the files and that her opinion affected very much the interview with
    the Mccanns.Mitchel was present therefore the questions were prepared. The dogs,
    the pact and Amarals book were all questions the Mccanns were happy to answer.
    The only good point was that SF asked them to explain that even when Paulo
    rebelo took over the case he said the Investigation still pointed in the right
    direction.Joana has to learn that all information must be on her blog
    not just of her choosing.Amaral is not a Saint and nor should we think of him as

    NOVEMBER 2009 09:09


  20. Yes and when I really started to question things, the contents of that post stuck in my head and I started to question what else we might not have been told.  Once the files started to reveal things I never knew and the truth I started visiting places that I would have normally ignored.

    So off I went on my blog and forum travels and found stuff that totally shocked me.

    Even Carana, the other day posted something that I was shocked at.

    And the above person who commented is correct, to be unbiased you have to hold all information negative and positive. 

  21. http://tv1.rtp.pt/noticias/?article=292287&headline=20&tm=7&visual=9
    only some minutes (before dinner here) and is in english.

    And, an article 

    In an interview Thursday that aired on RTP, the parents ofMaddie not explain who continues to fund the search of missingBritish girl in 2007 in the Algarve

    The McCanns were shown to be “visibly frustrated” with theinterview by journalist Sandra Felgueiras, on Tuesday in London, Thursday issued a Special Information on RTP1.

    The finding is an Irish newspaper which explains the frustration of parents of Maddie with the fact that Sandra Felgueiras have spoken about the issue of body odor detected by dogs in the apartment in Praia da Luz in the Algarve.

    “The McCanns responded as soon as the dogs are not reliable,as they fled to a number of other difficult issues, ‘says the journalist to the SUN, which follows the case since Madeleine’s disappearance in May 2007.

    During the interview, we tried to understand why the criticism of the couple the action of the former Inspector of Judicial PoliceGonçalo Amaral, who was pursued by Paulo Rebelo, coordinator of the PJ in Portimao.

    According to the British edition of the free Metro, “the last call for help from Gerry and Kate was drowned out by some hard questions of the Portuguese journalist.”

      Felgueiras defends himself by saying that this was the first oneto interview the McCanns’ Portuguese TV since lost their status as defendants, and for this reason that “many issues had to be done.”

    Some answers were given by: “They avoided answering when asked if Richard Branson and J. K. Rowling continued tofinance the search, but stressed that there are people who, individually, also helps. ”

    05 NOV 09

  22. From memory, the Sandra Felgueiras interview (chat show?) for which I have never found a translation (apart from Miffed’s summary) was very probably this one: 11/11/09 Praça da Alegria (RTP).


  23. Thanks Carana,

    It appears from the comments that Sandra blotted her rep with that interview.

    Morais said…122
    all, I’ll upload Sandra Felgueiras appearance at the RTP show ‘Praça da Alegria’
    as soon as possible. [you won’t like it though…]

  24. Anonymous said…79
    just watched Sandra Felgueiras in “Praça da Alegria”(RTP1).
    Is it just me or does anyone else feel that Sandra was much tammer, very subdued and
    cautious?…that bit about the FSS DNA reports, hummm…and the mention of the
    portuguese investigation shortcomings, not following a protocol, namelly them
    allowing “the world and it’s dog” in the apartment(!),I would have said
    that Sandra should now better, the comings and goings
    inside the apartment happened in the 45min. it took the Tapas gang to call the
    police! I wonder if she and RTP have been “advised” by C-Ruck or their
    portuguese extention Isabel Duarte…


    • So it is because of Carter Ruck and the PT Lawyers, it simply can’t be she read the files and realised what she had been told by certain people was a pile of bull crap.

      I am positive if Madeleine was found tomorrow they would say the McCanns arranged for her return because Scotland Yard was closing in on them.

      When are these people going to get it into their heads there is no evidence, there is no smoking gun and the only one convicted for perjury and falsifying documents is Goncalo Amaral himself.

  25. Hi Samantha & Bren

    Earlier in that thread, it seems that that chat show held high expectations in some quarters in terms of what Sandra was expected to say.

    From what I gather (as I have neither been able to watch it, nor read a transcription – only Miffed’s summary), it would seem that what Sandra actually said was critical about some points of the investigation. What stood out for me was that when she allegedly rushed to read the critical parts… according to Miffed’s summary, she discovered that there was nothing of any substance (DNA, etc.), and that journalists had been led to expect a smoking gun of some sort (my understanding of Miffed’s summary).

    Somehow, nearly two years later, the translation into any of the languages I can usually find – or, indeed even a transcription in Portuguese – seems to still be at the bottom of the pile. 


  26. […] further on from this post, I am beginning to wonder if the legal argument didn’t go Goncalo Amarals way.  You see if […]

  27. Hi Bren

    I’m scratching my head over a few things. 

    My first question is whether libel comes under criminal or civil law in Portugal. 

    According to Wikipedia:

    PortugalIn Portugal, defamation crimes are: “defamation” (article 180 of the Penal Code; up to six months in prison, or a fine of up to 240 days), “injuries” (art. 181; up to 3 months in prison, or a fine up to 120 days), and “offense to the memory of a deceased person” (art. 185; up to 6 months in prison or a fine of up 240 days). Penalties are aggravated in cases with publicity (art. 183; up to two years in prison or at least 120 days of fine) and when the victim is an authority (art.184; all other penalties aggravated by an extra half). There is yet the extra penalty of “public knowledge of the court decision” (costs paid by the defamer) (art. 189 of Penal Code) and also the crime of “incitation of a crime” (article 297; up to 3 years in prison, or fine).[64][65]

    I skimmed through the Civil Code (which could be out-of-date, but cites revisions made in 2008) and couldn’t find a section related specifically to libel: there are a few bits related to the rights of the person (art. 70), but not much more.

    In the Penal Code (if the Wiki reference is up-to-date, bearing in mind legislation seems to change in Portugal fairly frequently):


    I’ll have to come back to this, still trying to work it out. 

    My second question is whether an out-of-court settlement is even possible if it falls within criminal legislation. 

  28. I found this Carana

    Vexatious libel litigants in Portugal have little to lose, because:

    It costs relatively little to bring a criminal libel case in Portugal
    as it is essentially paid for by the Public Prosecution Service. (Judges
    themselves who bring libel cases enjoy favourable terms…and are exempt
    from paying any court costs!)
    In Britain litigants who bring false actions for libel are ordered to
    pay the other side’s legal costs and expenses, and if found to have lied
    are prosecuted for perjury and given a jail sentence. No such
    consequences hang in the balance in Portugal.
    Even when the European Court of Human Rights determines that Portugal
    is in breach of Article 10 governing Freedom of Expression (which it
    invariably does) and orders the State to reimburse the applicant all
    fines and damages paid plus expenses incurred, the Portuguese litigant
    still gets to keep his/her “compensation” as the bill is footed by the
    Portuguese taxpayer!
    are therefore few deterrents to discourage spurious claims. Hence,
    libel actions are used as a highly effective intimidatory and
    persecutory weapon to silence critics, whistle-blowers and consumers
    alike, leaving the hapless individual who has spoken out with a European
    Criminal Record and the claimant with a profit! A win-win situation for
    any malicious litigant.

    in Britain, where it is considered essential that libel cases be
    determined by a jury, and thus it remains the only civil case still to
    be decided by twelve members of the public, in Portugal the decision
    rests at 1st instance with one judge.

    offence of aggravated defamation is an inversion of democracy because
    it provides for greater punishment where the plaintiff is a judge,
    public official, lawyer or member of the clergy; insulating from
    criticism and scrutiny the very people who exercise power over other
    people’s lives, and therefore need to be subject to greater, not less,
    scrutiny and accountability.

    only legitimate purpose of libel laws is to protect reputations from
    unwarranted attack and the dissemination of false statements of fact. A
    reputation is an objective, definable concept and hence the European
    Convention refers to the balancing of the rights of freedom of
    expression and protection of reputation.

    Portugal, criminal libel proceedings can be initiated on the flimsy and
    totally subjective argument that “one’s honour has been offended”,
    regardless of the legitimacy of the criticism or the veracity of the
    statement, and the Portuguese version of Article 10 of the Convention
    has substituted the word “reputation” for the term “honour.”

  29. And I can’t remember who told me, but I am sure it can be both civil and criminal.  If it is a criminal complaint and the defendant is found guilty then I think the person who wins has so long to put in a claim for damages in a civil court.

  30. CÓDIGO PENAL Disposições relevantes em matéria de comunicação socialPARTE ESPECIALTÍTULO IDOS CRIMES CONTRA AS PESSOASCAPÍTULO VIDos crimes contra a honraARTIGO 180.º
    (Difamação)1- Quem, dirigindo-se a terceiro, imputar a outra pessoa, mesmo sob a forma de suspeita, um facto, ou formular sobre ela um juízo, ofensivos da sua honra ou consideração, ou reproduzir uma tal imputação ou juízo, é punido com pena de prisão até 6 meses ou com pena de multa até 240 dias.

    2- A conduta não é punível quando:
    a) A imputação for feita para realizar interesses legítimos; e
    b) O agente provar a verdade da mesma imputação ou tiver tido fundamento sério para, em boa fé, a reputar verdadeira.

    3- Sem prejuízo do disposto nas alíneas b), c) e d) do n.º 2 do artigo 31.º deste Código, o disposto no número anterior não se aplica tratando-se da imputação de facto relativo à intimidade da vida privada e familiar.

    4- A boa fé referida na alínea b) do n.º 2 exclui-se quando o agente não tiver cumprido o dever de informação, que as circunstâncias do caso impunham, sobre a verdade da imputação.

    5- Quando a imputação for de facto que constitua crime, é também admissível a prova da verdade da imputação, mas limitada à resultante de condenação por sentença transitada em julgado.ARTIGO 181.º
    (Injúrias)1- Quem injuriar outra pessoa, imputando-lhe factos, mesmo sob a forma de suspeita, ou dirigindo-lhe palavras, ofensivos da sua honra ou consideração, é punido com pena de prisão até 3 meses ou com pena de multa até 120 dias.

    2- Tratando-se da imputação de factos, é correspondentemente aplicável o disposto nos n.ºs 2, 3, 4 e 5 do artigo anterior.ARTIGO 182.º
    (Equiparação)À difamação e à injúria verbais são equiparadas as feitas por escrito, gestos, imagens ou qualquer outro meio de expressão.ARTIGO 183.º
    (Publicidade e calúnia)1- Se no caso dos crimes previstos nos artigos 180.º, 181.º e 182.º:
    a) A ofensa for praticada através de meios ou em circunstâncias que facilitem a sua divulgação; ou,
    b) Tratando-se da imputação de factos, se averiguar que o agente conhecia a falsidade da imputação; as penas da difamação ou da injúria são elevadas de um terço nos seus limites mínimo e máximo.

    2- Se o crime for cometido através de meio de comunicação social, o agente é punido com pena de prisão até 2 anos ou com pena de multa não inferior a 120 dias.ARTIGO 184.º
    (Agravação)As penas previstas nos artigos 180.º, 181.º e 183.º são elevadas de metade nos seus limites mínimo e máximo se a vítima for uma das pessoas referidas no artigo 132.º, n.º 2, alínea h), no exercício das suas funções ou por causa delas.Artigo 132.º n.º 2, alínea h): Ter praticado o facto contra membro de órgão de soberania, do Conselho de Estado, Ministro da República, magistrado, membro de órgão do governo próprio das Regiões Autónomas ou do território de Macau, Provedor de Justiça, governador civil, membro de órgão das autarquias locais ou de serviço ou organismo que exerça autoridade pública, comandante de força pública, jurado, testemunha, advogado, agente das forças ou serviços de segurança, funcionário público, civil ou militar, agente de força pública ou cidadão encarregado de serviço público, docente ou examinador público, ou ministro de culto religioso, no exercício das suas funções ou por causa delas.ARTIGO 185.º
    (Ofensa à memória de pessoa falecida)1- Quem, por qualquer forma, ofender gravemente a memória de pessoa falecida é punido com pena de prisão até 6 meses ou com pena de multa até 240 dias.

    2- É correspondentemente aplicável o disposto:
    a) Nos n.ºs 2, 3, 4 e 5 do artigo 180.º; e 
    b) No artigo 183.º 

    3- A ofensa não é punível quando tiverem decorrido mais de 50 anos sobre o falecimento.ARTIGO 186.º
    (Dispensa de pena)1- O tribunal dispensa de pena o agente quando este der em juízo esclarecimentos ou explicações da ofensa de que foi acusado, se o ofendido, quem o represente ou integre a sua vontade como titular do direito de queixa ou de acusação particular, os aceitar como satisfatórios.

    2- O tribunal pode ainda dispensar de pena se a ofensa tiver sido provocada por uma conduta ilícita ou repreensível do ofendido.

    3- Se o ofendido ripostar, no mesmo acto, com uma ofensa a outra ofensa, o tribunal pode dispensar de pena ambos os agentes ou só um deles, conforma as circunstâncias.ARTIGO 187.º
    (Ofensa a pessoa colectiva, organismo ou serviço)1- Quem, sem ter fundamento para, em boa fé, os reputar verdadeiros, afirmar ou propalar factos inverídicos, capazes de ofenderem a credibilidade, o prestígio ou a confiança que sejam devidos a pessoa colectiva, instituição, corporação, organismo ou serviço que exerça autoridade pública, é punido com pena de prisão até 6 meses ou com pena de multa até 240 dias.

    2- É correspondentemente aplicável o disposto:
    a) No artigo 183.º; e
    b) Nos n.ºs 1 e 2 do artigo 186.ºARTIGO 188.º
    (Procedimento criminal)1- O procedimento criminal pelos crimes previstos no presente capítulo depende de acusação particular, ressalvados os casos: 
    a) Do artigo 184.º; e
    b) Do artigo 187.º, sempre que o ofendido exerça autoridade pública; em que é suficiente a queixa ou a participação.

    2- O direito de acusação particular pelo crime previsto no artigo 185.º cabe às pessoas mencionadas no n.º 2 do artigo 113.º, pela ordem neste estabelecida.Artigo 113.º n.º 2:a) Ao cônjuge sobrevivo não separado judicialmente de pessoas e bens, aos descendentes adoptados e aos e aos ascendentes e aos adoptantes;b) Aos irmãos e seus descendentes e à pessoa que com o ofendido vivesse em condições análogas às dos cônjuges.ARTIGO 189.º(Conhecimento público da sentença condenatória)1- Em caso de condenação, ainda que com dispensa de pena, nos termos do artigo 183.º, da alínea b) do n.º 2 do artigo 185.º, ou da alínea a) do n.º 2 do artigo 187.º, o tribunal ordena, a expensas do agente, o conhecimento público adequado da sentença, se tal for requerido, até ao encerramento da audiência em 1.ª instância, pelo titular do direito de queixa ou de acusação particular.

    2- O tribunal fixa os termos concretos em que o conhecimento público da sentença deve ter lugar. 

  31. I have put that through Google translator Carana

    CODE relevant provisions on reporting socialPARTE ESPECIALTÍTULO GONE
    CRIMES AGAINST PESSOASCAPÍTULO VIDOS crimes against honraARTIGO 180. º(Defamation)
    1 – Who, turning to the third, to impute to another person, even in the
    form of suspicion, a fact, or formulate an opinion on it, offending
    their honor or consideration, or reproduce such an allocation or a
    court, is punishable with imprisonment up to six months or a fine of up to 240 days.
    2 – The conduct is not punishable if:a) The allocation is made to perform legitimate interests, andb) The agent to prove the truth of that imputation or have had serious grounds for believing in good faith, deems true.
    – Notwithstanding the provisions of subparagraphs b), c) and d) of
    paragraph 2 of Article 31. Of this Code, the preceding paragraph shall
    not apply with regard to the imputation of fact concerning the private
    life and family.
    – Good faith mentioned in b) of paragraph 2 is excluded when the agent
    has not fulfilled the duty to inform, that the circumstances imposed on
    the truth of the imputation.
    – When charging is a fact that constitutes a crime, is also admissible
    to prove the truth of the imputation, but limited the resulting
    conviction by a court decision in julgado.ARTIGO 181. º(Injuries)
    1 – Who injure another person, imputing to him the facts, even in the
    form of suspicion, or driving her words, insulting their honor or
    consideration, shall be punished with imprisonment up to 3 months or a
    fine of up 120 days.
    – Regarding the imputation of facts, shall apply accordingly the
    provisions of paragraphs 2, 3, 4 and 5 of Article 182 anterior.ARTIGO. º(Equal)
    the verbal defamation and slander are the equivalent in writing,
    gestures, pictures or any other means of expressão.ARTIGO 183. º(Advertising and slander) 1 – If in the case of crimes specified in Articles 180., 181. No. 182. º:a) The offense is committed by means or in circumstances that facilitate disclosure, or,b)
    In the case of attribution of facts, we determined that the agent knew
    the falsity of the imputation, the feathers of defamation or injury are
    increased by a third in its minimum and maximum.
    – If the crime is committed by means of social communication, the agent
    is punished with imprisonment up to two years or a fine of not less
    than 120 dias.ARTIGO 184. º(Aggravation)
    The penalties provided for in Article 180., 181. And 183. Shall be
    higher than half in its minimum and maximum if the victim is a person
    referred to in Article 132., Paragraph 2, point h ),
    in the exercise of his duties or because delas.Artigo 132., paragraph
    2, point h): Having done that against a member of a sovereign body, the
    Council of State, Minister of the Republic, judge, member of the Board Government
    of the Autonomous Regions or territory of Macau, the Ombudsman, civil
    governor, member of the local agency or authority or body exercising
    public authority, public force commander, jury, witness, attorney, or
    agent of the forces security
    services, public official, civilian or military, law enforcement
    officer or citizen in charge of public service, public teacher or
    examiner, or minister of religion, in the exercise of his duties or
    because delas.ARTIGO 185. º(Offense
    to the memory of deceased) 1 – Who, in any way, seriously offend the
    memory of the deceased is punished with imprisonment up to six months or
    a fine of up to 240 days.
    2 – The provisions are correspondingly:a) In paragraphs. 2, 3, 4 and 5 of Article 180. º, andb) Article 183. º
    3 – The offense is not punishable if it has been more than 50 years on the falecimento.ARTIGO 186. º(Waiver
    of penalty) 1 – The court waiver of penalty, the agent when he goes in
    court for clarification or explanation of the offense that was charged
    to the victim, their representative or integrate their will as holder of
    the right of complaint or accusation particular, to accept as satisfactory.
    2 – The court may also waive the penalty if the offense has been caused by an unlawful or reprehensible conduct of the victim.
    – If the victim fight back in the same act, with an offense to another
    offense, the court may waive the penalty both agents or only one of
    them, according to circunstâncias.ARTIGO 187. º(Offense
    legal person, body or service) 1 – Who, without having grounds for
    believing in good faith, deems true, untrue facts affirm or noise, which
    can offend the credibility, prestige and the confidence that the legal
    person are due ,
    institution, corporation, body or department exercising public
    authority, shall be punished with imprisonment up to 6 months or a fine
    of up to 240 days.
    2 – The provisions are correspondingly:a) Article 183. º, andb) In paragraphs 1 and 2 of Article 186. Article 188. º(Prosecution) 1 – The prosecution of crimes under this chapter depends on private prosecution, except in the cases:a) Article 184. º, andb)
    Article 187. thereof, the offended whenever exercising public
    authority, which is enough in the complaint or the participation.
    – The right of private prosecution for the crime provided for in art.
    185 fits to the persons mentioned in paragraph 2 of Article 113.
    Thereof, the order in estabelecida.Artigo 113. No. 2: a) the surviving
    spouse does not legally
    separated people and goods, and adopted descendants and ascendants and
    adoptive b) To the brothers and their descendants and the person with
    the victim lived in conditions similar to those of cônjuges.ARTIGO 189. º
    (Public Knowledge of the sentence sentence)
    1 – In case of conviction, even with exemption from punishment, under
    Article 183. thereof, of b) of paragraph 2 of Article 185. thereof, or
    a) of paragraph 2 of Article
    187. thereof, the court orders at the expense of the agent, public
    knowledge of the appropriate sentence, if requested, until the close of
    an audience. first instance, by the right of complaint or private
    2 – The court sets out in concrete terms that the public knowledge of sentencing to take place.http://www.aacs.pt/legislacao/codigo_penal.htm

  32. Hi Bren, 

    In the Civil Code, this would seem to be the relevant section. So, yes, it might well be a civil suit after all.

    CÓDIGO CIVIL Disposições relevantes em matéria de Comunicação SocialArtigo 70.º 
    (Tutela geral da personalidade)1- A lei protege os indivíduos contra qualquer ofensa ilícita ou ameaça de ofensa à sua personalidade física ou moral. 

    2- Independentemente da responsabilidade civil a que haja lugar, a pessoa ameaçada ou ofendida pode requerer as providências adequadas às circunstâncias do caso, com o fim de evitar a consumação da ameaça ou atenuar os efeitos da ofensa já cometida.Artigo 71.º 
    (Ofensa a pessoas já falecidas)1- Os direitos de personalidade gozam igualmente de protecção depois da morte do respectivo titular. 

    2- Tem legitimidade, neste caso, para requerer as providências previstas no n.º 2 do artigo anterior o cônjuge sobrevivo ou qualquer descendente, ascendente, irmão, sobrinho ou herdeiro do falecido. 

    3- Se a ilicitude da ofensa resultar de falta de consentimento, só as pessoas que o deveriam prestar têm legitimidade, conjunta ou separadamente, para requerer as providências a que o número anterior se refere.Artigo 72.º 
    (Direito ao nome)1- Toda a pessoa tem direito a usar o seu nome, completo ou abreviado, e a opor-se a que outrem o use ilicitamente para sua identificação ou outros fins.

    2 – O titular do nome não pode, todavia, especialmente no exercício de uma actividade profissional, usá-lo de modo a prejudicar os interesses de quem tiver nome total ou parcialmente idêntico; nestes casos, o tribunal decretará ao providências que, segundo juízos de equidade, melhor conciliem os interesses em conflito.Artigo 73.º 
    (Legitimidade)As acções relativas à defesa do nome podem ser exercidas não só pelo respectivo titular, como, depois da morte dele, pelas pessoas referidas no n.º 2 do artigo 71.ºArtigo 74.º 
    (Pseudónimo)O pseudónimo, quando tenha notoriedade, goza da protecção conferida ao próprio nome.Artigo 75.º 
    (Cartas-missivas confidenciais)1- O destinatário de carta-missiva de natureza confidencial deve guardar reserva sobre o seu conteúdo, não lhe sendo lícito aproveitar os elementos de informação que ela tenha levado ao seu conhecimento.

    2 – Morto o destinatário, pode a restituição da carta confidencial ser ordenada pelo tribunal, a requerimento do autor dela ou, se este já tiver falecido, das pessoas indicadas no n.º 2 do artigo 71.º; pode também ser ordenada a destruição da carta, o seu depósito em mão de pessoa idónea ou qualquer outra medida apropriada.Artigo 76.º 
    (Publicação de cartas confidenciais)1- As cartas-missivas confidenciais só podem ser publicadas com o consentimento do seu autor ou com o suprimento judicial desse consentimento; mas não há lugar ao suprimento quando se trate de utilizar as cartas como documento literário, histórico ou biográfico.

    2- Depois da morte do autor, a autorização compete às pessoas designadas no n.º 2 do artigo 71.º, segundo a ordem nele indicada.Artigo 77.º 
    (Memórias familiares e outros escritos confidenciais)O disposto no artigo anterior é aplicável, com as necessárias adaptações, às memórias familiares e pessoais e a outros escritos que tenham carácter confidencial ou se refiram à intimidade da vida privada.Artigo 78.º 
    (Cartas-missivas não confidenciais)O destinatário de carta não confidencial só pode usar dela em termos que não contrariem a expectativa do autor.Artigo 79.º 
    (Direito à imagem)1- O retrato de uma pessoa não pode ser exposto, reproduzido ou lançado no comércio sem o consentimento dela; depois da morte da pessoa retratada, a autorização compete às pessoas designadas no n.º2 do artigo 71.º, segundo a ordem nele indicada. 

    2- Não é necessário o consentimento da pessoa retratada quando assim o justifiquem a sua notoriedade, o cargo que desempenhe, exigências de polícia ou de justiça, finalidades científicas, didácticas ou culturais, ou quando a reprodução da imagem vier enquadrada na de lugares públicos, ou na de factos de interesse público ou que hajam decorrido publicamente.

    3- O retrato não pode, porém, ser reproduzido, exposto ou lançado no comércio, se do facto resultar prejuízo para a honra, reputação ou simples decoro da pessoa retratada.Artigo 80.º 
    (Direito à reserva sobre a intimidade da vida privada)1- Todos devem guardar reserva quanto à intimidade da vida privada de outrem.

    2- A extensão da reserva é definida conforme a natureza do caso e a condição das pessoas.Artigo 81.º
    (Limitação voluntária dos direitos de personalidades)1- Toda a limitação voluntária ao exercício dos direitos de personalidade é nula, se for contrária aos princípios da ordem pública.

    2- A limitação voluntária, quando legal, é sempre revogável, ainda que com obrigação de indemnizar os prejuízos causados às legitimas expectativas da outra parte.—————————-Artigo 484.º 
    (Ofensa do crédito ou do bom nome)Quem afirmar ou difundir um facto capaz de prejudicar o crédito ou o bom nome de qualquer pessoa, singular ou colectiva, responde pelos danos causados.


  33. The formatting has gone haywire… yet again. I’ll try to repost in a bit.

  34. Google translation

    CIVIL CODE provisions relevant to communication SocialArtigo 70. º(Protection
    of overall personality) 1 – The law protects individuals against any
    unlawful interference or threat of physical harm to its character or
    – Regardless of the liability that may arise, the person threatened or
    offended may require appropriate action to the circumstances in order to
    prevent the consummation of the threat or mitigate the effects of the
    offense has cometida.Artigo 71. º(Offense to deceased persons) 1 – The rights of personality also enjoy protection after the death of the holder.
    – have legitimacy in this case to apply the measures provided for in
    paragraph 2 of the previous article the surviving spouse or any
    descendant, ancestor, brother, nephew and heir of the deceased.
    – If the offense of unlawful result of lack of consent, the only people
    who should have standing to pay, jointly or separately, to request the
    action to the preceding paragraph is refere.Artigo 72.(Right
    to a name) 1 – Everyone has the right to use your name, complete or
    abbreviated, and to oppose others who use it illegally to their
    identification or other purposes.
    – The name holder can not, however, especially in the exercise of a
    profession, so use it to harm the interests of those who have wholly or
    partly identical name, in which case, the court shall order the action,
    according judgments equity, better reconcile the interests conflito.Artigo 73. º(Legitimacy)
    Actions on behalf of the defense may be exercised not only by the
    holder and, after his death, the persons referred to in paragraph 2 of
    Article 71. Article 74. º(Alias) The pseudonym when you have fame, enjoys the protection afforded to own nome.Artigo 75. º(Letters
    confidential letters) 1 – The recipient of the letter-letter of a
    confidential nature must keep reserves on its content, it is not lawful
    to make the information it has brought to your attention.
    – Dead recipient, restitution may be ordered from a confidential letter
    by the court at the request of the author of it or, if it has already
    died, from persons listed in paragraph 2 of Article 71. Can also be
    ordered destruction the letter, your deposit in the hands of a competent person or any other measure apropriada.Artigo 76 thereof.(Publication
    of confidential letters) 1 – Letters of confidential letters may only
    be published with the consent of its author or the supply of legal
    consent, but there is no way to supply when it comes to using the
    letters as a literary document, historic or biographical.
    – After the death of the author, the authorization is the persons
    designated in paragraph 2 of Article 71. Thereof, in the order it
    indicada.Artigo 77. º(Memoirs
    family and other private writings) The provisions of the preceding
    article shall apply, mutatis mutandis, to family and personal memoirs
    and other writings that are confidential or refer to the intimacy of
    life privada.Artigo 78. º(Non-confidential
    letters-letters) The recipient of the letter is not confidential can
    only use it in terms that do not contradict the expectation of
    autor.Artigo 79. º(Right
    of picture) 1 – The portrait of a person can not be displayed,
    reproduced or commercially released without her consent and after the
    death of the person portrayed, the authorization is the persons
    designated in paragraph 2 of Article 71. º, in the order stated therein.
    – You do not need the consent of the person portrayed as well as
    justify its reputation, the position you play, the demands of police or
    justice, scientific purposes, educational or cultural, or when the
    playback image comes framed in public places, of facts or the public interest or that have elapsed publicly.
    – The picture may not, however, be reproduced, displayed or marketed
    under that result from the injury to the honor, reputation or simple
    decency of the person retratada.Artigo 80.(Reserve on the Right to private life) 1 – All reservation must keep about the private life of others.
    2 – The extent of the reserve is defined as the nature of the case and the condition of pessoas.Artigo 81. º(Voluntary
    limitation of personal rights) 1 – Any voluntary limitation on the
    exercise of personal rights is void, if contrary to the principles of
    public order.
    – The voluntary limitation, when legal, is always revocable, even with
    the obligation to compensate the damage caused to the legitimate
    expectations of the other party .——————— ——- Article 484. º(Offense
    credit or good name) or broadcast a person who claims that could harm
    the credit or the reputation of any person, whether natural or legal
    person, is liable for damages.


  35. Thanks for that info Carana, I have put the google translation here

    So if this is a civil case then, they could well settle out of Court.

  36. Do you know what Carana?  I have just had a chuckle about his, if by any chance an out of court settlement is agreed and the trial is halted and the McCanns end up with a nice donation to the fund, it will be like watching a nuclear meltdown without the risk of getting radiation sickness.

    And where will that leave Bennett et al, after all they rely on his book to back up their statements and theories? As my mum would say, “Up sh*t creek without a paddle.”

    The more you think about it, it would be global. Twitter will be abuzz with rabid comments and conspiracy theories.

  37. A caveat is that the Google translation seems half gibberish, so I think it would not be wise to rely on it to come to any conclusion as to meaning. I think it would require someone conversant with Portuguese law and who is fluent in English. 

    For example, I haven’t the faintest idea whether  the concept in this bit “A lei protege os indivíduos contra qualquer ofensa ilícita ou ameaça de ofensa à sua personalidade física ou moral” what “moral personality” refers to : an offence, or threat of an offence, against the character of a real person or in the sense of an offence against a business entity (as opposed to a physical person). 

  38. Maybe certain entities in the UK should consider how far the Express group fared in terms of repeating PT tabloid allegations. 

  39. Isn’t the Secretary simply the person who takes minutes of meetings of members including approved further action?

  40. Yes the Secretary is, general dogs body, sorts out this that and the other, but holds no real power.

  41. So who bears the responsibility ?

  42. That is why I think the McCanns have gone for individuals, like Bennett and Butler, rather than the entity ‘Madeleine Foundation’ along with the case in Portugal, they have taken each of these people to court as individuals.

    That is why each of them are represented in Court individually rather than having one lawyer speaking on behalf of all of them.

    Now I did read ages ago on MM, but lost the link now where someone had quoted that if they went after an organisation that had members, that the members could be help responsible for costs and damages if they lost.

    Now I found this


    · A religious organisation published a leaflet in which defamatory
    statements were made concerning the activities and beliefs of one of its
    former members. In the subsequent libel action, damages of £55,000 were
    awarded against the organisation.

    So on that snippet then, if one of the members of the ‘Madeleine Foundation’ did produce something libellous under the ‘Madeleine Foundation’ authority then theoretically the Foundation could be sued instead of the individual.

    Personally I think the likes of TV Companies, Publishers tend to settle out of court as they realise that a libel trial could tie them up for years and if they lost would cost a whole lot more than if they had settled in the first place.

    As was stated, I think by yourself Carana, when they published that book, and sent it on its way to the shops, the Publishers had taken GA’s word for things, and would not have had time to check the book towards the files…  now that is why I think they might settle out of court.  Because their lawyers would have gone through that with a fine tooth comb.

    Also remember it was September 09 when the McCanns first got the book banned and started libel proceedings. It was only 4 months later that they were in Court on the overturning of the ban, not a lot of time to go through all those files double checking is it.

    Now over 2 years down the line they would have understood the files completely, digested what they actually said and would base their decision on that.

    What I find very strange is that the Publishers have not rushed to put these books back on the shelf in order to recoup lost sales.

    • Because their lawyers would have gone through that with a fine tooth comb.

      Would have done or should have done?

      • I think when the book went to print they never went through it and I doubt if they bothered until libel proceedings landed on the Publishers desk.  They didn’t have a copy of the files for them to check the facts of the book.

        But since September 2009 I would imagine their lawyers have gone through it word for word, and the moment they found something that could be construed as libellous they would advice their clients to capitulate.

        Remember Bennett, according to him, only had a about 10 lines in that book that were deemed libellous but the lawyers advice was to capitulate and cease and desist.

        Personally Carana any book that accuses the parents of harming their child I thought would have been put on hold until the publishers could check their facts. They knew the files were due to be released so why didn’t they hold fire until after the lawyers went through the book.

  43. From a brief – and rare – foray into yonder waters, it would appear that Sky News is still considered to be “in it”. In four years, I have found nothing to substantiate the alleged Sky-before-police call. 

    27/09/2011 06:09
    Anonymous said…118Is it true or not that the McCanns called Sky News on that fatal night and was Sky News hiding the truth about that call? Was that the beginning of the pressure on Blair and Gordon Brown and if it was, was the death premeditated, with Murdoch’s support?
    I hope the Scotland Yard found out about this call. If this call was denied by Sky News, in order to protect the McCanns, than my conclusion is that there was an agreement before the group left England. I don’t see why Carlos Anjos would lie about this.

  44. Oh no not that one again, there is nothing in the files that I can see that says they phoned Sky before Police. 

    Rachel phoned someone she knew it is in the PJ Final report

    It should be pointed out, in terms of the media knowledge and
    divulgation, that witness RACHEL MAMPILLY, at around 2 a.m. on
    the morning of the 4th, assumes to have contacted the official
    British television BBC, through someone that she knew, reporting
    the disappearance and asking for it to be broadcast.

  45. Yes, the BBC – not Sky, and if 2am ish is correct that is way after the police were called. 

    I just found another myth that has turned into an octopus. I’m happy to deal with that one tomorrow.

  46. Should have given bb1 credit for finding the Sky one (by yonder waters, I didn’t mean JATYK).

  47. Talking about Court cases, BB1 has picked it up and it appeared on on MM forum apparently taken from The Maddie Case Files forum

    Lagos – Tribunal Judicial de Lagos

    Foram encontrados 3 agendamentos
    Processo Intervenientes Diligências Data Hora Observações
    1º Juízo
    Processo Comum (Tribunal Singular) Demandante Sergey Malinka
    Autor Ministério Público
    Arguido Hernani Carvalho
    Arguido Luis Maia Julgamento ou Audiência final 28-09-2011 9:30

    Now the link BB1 has tidied up and it is


    And it appears that  Luis Maia is a regular contributor to: Reporter at TVI (a private Portuguese TV Channel)

    And accorinding to wiki he co-wrote the book Maddie 129


    Maddie 129, ISBN 9789898028617,
    that covers the 129 days between Madeleine’s disappearance and the
    McCanns’ return to Rothley. The book claims to identify contradictions
    and unanswered questions in the accounts of the McCanns and their
    friends. It was published in early November 2007, in English by Prime Books, and written by two Portuguese journalists Hernâni Carvalho and Luís Maia

  48. I vaguely remember that name (Luis Maia). However, several others would have rung more bells.

  49. Ahh. Penny may just have dropped. Will look at that tomorrow. 

  50. Well it appears it has been listed 4 times this month

    19th, 22nd, 23rd and 28th

    And I would say by the number end in 08 it was started in 2008

  51. And it appears that the case on the 23rd has a total different case number

    1º Juízo
    Processo Comum (Tribunal Singular)
    Autor Ministério Público

    Assistente Sergey Malinka
    Arguido Hernani Carvalho
    Demandado Maria Teresa Costa Alexandre Pais

    Julgamento ou Audiência final 22-09-2011 14:00


    And the arguido in that case is again Carvalho

  52. Malinka is an assistente in the second one – not the person bringing the case? That case should now have been heard.

    • Yes and if you look the case number is higher than the first one.  I wonder if something transpired and the PM brought charges against Carvalho and Pais and they had to wait for that to be concluded before they could conclude the original case.

  53. I wonder now if the other defendants will settle with McCanns out of court.  They would be stupid not to now, after the revelations of today.  I can see Goncalo Amaral facing this on his own, because I bet the lawyers are keeping a close eye on Leveson Inquiry.

Comments are closed.

%d bloggers like this: