30 Comments

Malinka -v- Carvalho and Maia

LisbonCourtWell it appears that Sergey Malinka has instigated legal proceedings against Hernani Carvalho at Lagos Court.

Lagos – Tribunal Judicial de Lagos

Foram encontrados 3 agendamentos
Processo Intervenientes Diligências Data Hora Observações
377/08.0TALGS
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

Google translate: Lagos – Lagos Judicial Court

Found 3 schedules
Stakeholder Process Measures Date Time Comments
377/08.0TALGS
Judgement 1
Process Policy (Single Court) Claimant Sergey Malinka
Author prosecutor
Defendant Hernani Carvalho
Defendant Luis Maia trial or final hearing 09/28/2011 9:30

http://www.citius.mj.pt/Portal/consultas/ConsultasAgenda.aspx

The hearings for September are as follows:

19th September 2011

Malinka-19-9-11

23rd September 2011

Malinka-23-9-11

28th September 2011

 

Malinka-28-9-11

 

With reference to the case number 377/08.0TALGS could this case be related to the fact that they wrote a book? According to Wiki Carvalho and Maia were co-authors on a book called 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

However that is not the only case Sergey Malinka is involved in, he is an ‘assistant’ in another case against Carvalho (Arguido) and Defendant Maria Teresa Costa Alexandre Pais.

This case was listed for the 22nd September 2011

Malinka-22-9-11

679/08.5TALGS
1º Juízo
Processo Comum (Tribunal Singular)
Autor Ministério Público

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

Google translation

679/08.5TALGS
Judgement 1
Process Policy (Single Court)
Author prosecutor

Assistant Sergey Malinka
Defendant Hernani Carvalho
Respondent Maria Teresa Costa Alexandre Pais

Advertisements

30 comments on “Malinka -v- Carvalho and Maia

  1. Many thanks to Urcrazy for finding this;  As they say in their post it does appear that Malinka is watching what is said about him:

    http://www.dailymail.co.uk/home/article-1180845/Sergey-Malinka.html

  2. Could be wrong, but it sounds as if Malinka has filed a criminal suit. However, I’m not sure why Carvalho is an arguido,  but Maria Teresa Costa Alexandre Pais is a “Demandado”. Googling the term, it appears more often (though not exclusively) in proceedings presided by a Justice of the Peace. I’m wondering if there could be a criminal charge against Carvalho, and a civil one against the lady in question.

    Anyway, if it’s the same person, she would appear to be a director of “TV Mais” and “Telenovelas”. 

    http://www.erc.pt/pt/transparencia/pessoa/242

  3. In that second case the one number 679/08.5TALGS  Sergey Malinka is down as an assistente and it looks like the proceedings were instigated after the other case and it seems the Autor is the Public Ministry.

    I wonder if something happened in the first case the one numbered 377/08.0TALGS  and  the Public Ministry decided to bring charges against Carvalho and Pais for whatever reason and they could not continue with the case of 377/08.0TALGS until the other case (679/08.5TALGS)  had been dealt with as the result of that case could have an influence on the result of the case which Malinka brought against Carvalho and Maia.

    If you can understand that LOL

    • I could be wrong, but my conclusion so far is that there is a hearing under penal (criminal) law against Carvalho and a civil suit against the lady. 

      Unless I’ve missed something, arguido is a status under criminal law. Assisente might well equate to “civil party” in PT legislation (Malinka) and the lady might therefore be the civil defendant within all of that. 

      If it’s the same person, she would appear to be a director of TV Mais – basically a TV Guide with so-called contributions from journalists. 

      It now has a website, but I don’t recall ever finding “articles” online at the time. It is possible that they did and I simply never found it or didn’t know how to find it, or that they developed the website much later. 

      I’ve never actually seen a print edition, but “articles” were frequently translated at the time and posted on certain blogs. 

      It may seem difficult to imagine now, but back in 2007, there was a whole new market of newly-broadband-enabled knitters.

  4. Just had a look, seems there’s yet another date filed for the 
    377/08.0TALGS hearing:
    25-10-2011 11:30
    This could be common procedure to book several dates in case one or more get cancelled for whatever reason. 

  5. And the other case has ‘Realizado’ next to it which means completed.  So there should be a judgement somewhere on that one.

  6. And when you come to think of this, someone, somewhere will make this all the fault of the McCann family.

    We will hear if those Tapas members had not identified Murat then Malinka would not have been dragged into this.

    The will conveniently forget that the Police were suspicious of Murat and that a witness Silvia Batista in one of her statements mentioned him possibly being there that night.

    Yes it will all be forgotten and the McCanns along with their friends will be at fault… yet again

  7. Well according to CdeM on the 29th July 2008 they did not report favourably to Malinka according to a translation on Joanna Morais Blog

    http://joana-morais.blogspot.com/2008/07/kate-mccann-tried-everything-to-frame.html

  8. From the archiving dispatch

    From the forensics exams to Serghei
    Malinka’s, Robert Murat’s and Jenny
    Murat’s computers [14], it could be
    concluded that the contents of the
    examined drives produced nothing
    that could compromise them as
    participants in any illicit
    activity, namely the one that was
    being investigated in the process.

    From the interception of
    communications, the telephone
    contact record of arguido Robert
    Murat, his mother Jennifer Murat,
    witnesses Michaela Walazuch, Luís
    António and Sergey Malinka​; records
    and maps of the telephone calls that
    were made from public telephone
    booths in Praia da Luz nothing flows
    that could have any indicative use.

    From the analysis that was performed
    on every contact, from the 1st of
    November 2006 until the 19th of July
    2007, by Robert, Michaela, Sergey,
    Jennifer and Luís António, results
    that Robert and Malinka, only
    contacted each other eight times
    [15], that there were no relations
    between Sergey and Luís António, nor
    between him and Robert, nor between
    either of them and the Murat
    residence, between the 30th of April
    and the 4th of May 2007 [16].

  9. There were all sorts of allegations against this chap by the press (to say nothing of the forum/blog speculation). I’m not at all surprised that he’s taken it to court. 

  10. Yes Carana, I can remember that, they wrote some very nasty things about him and it all emerged from Portugal via CdeM

    They totally twisted what the files actually said.

    http://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/PJ/BRIAN-KENNEDY.htm

    During the course of this meeting,
    the director of METODO 3 gave us a
    small book (attached), with
    information relative to the
    disappearance of the minor. This
    information, as we were told, was
    received via telephone and that they
    had already opened a line in Spain,
    specifically to receive and deal
    with information.

    In this book, written in Spanish, we
    can analyse three pieces of
    information:

    1. In the first case, we observed
    that there was report of facts which
    occurred in August/September of
    2006, and which appears to us
    somewhat extemporaneous, as it
    cannot now be related to the
    material under investigation.

    2. In the second point, we should
    remember that the computers of
    Sergey Malinka​ were searched and
    that nothing of suspicion was found
    there or related to paedophilia.

    3. In that which concerns the third
    point, we are currently carrying out
    diligences with the intent to
    confirm or disprove the related
    information.

    So Metodo3 held a meeting with the PJ gave them a book of information and it appears that this was in that book

    http://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/PJ/SERGEY-MALINKA.htm#p13p3439
    And the press in PT totally twisted it without checking facts.

  11. Some journalists seem to have forgotten their code of ethics along with their laundry. 

    The sensationalist press became amplified by bloggers and forums. A total pantomime. 

    Even the files don’t reflect the pandemonium, nor the fact that witnesses were unlikely to have been able to read a print-out, in their native language, prior to signing. 

    I think there was a thread on Headlines on that issue.

  12. According to a handful of fruitloops*, whatever happens in this world will always be the fault of the McCanns. Even if people disappear in a typhoon at the other end of the world, it will be because the McCanns have such a heavy hand over the press that it was unable to report on other issues. 

    * And by fruitloops, I don’t mean those who had genuine questions in the absence of verifiable information at the beginning of the affair.

  13. via http://stopthemyths.prophpbb.com/topic1399-25.htmlUrcrazy:”From this link, Ines gives this summary:http://www.dgsi.pt/jtre.nsf/c3fb530030ea1c61802568d9005cd5bb/7d24f9a346460ca28025770e004b0a18?OpenDocument

    Case Number 679/08.5TALGS-A.E1On 2nd March 2010 the Evora court ruled against the appeal made by Maria Teresa Costa Alexandra Pais (director of TV Mais) who wanted to be given arguido status. Both she and Carvalho are accused of aggravated defamation.”

    Curiouser and curiouser…

  14. Part of the above post disappeared. I had given credit to Urcrazy, but the post got mangled. Again.

  15. I have sorted that link out Carana, but this is getting curiouser and curiouser as you say.    Fair Play to Ines though for trying to make sense of it. 

    But what does amaze me, this obviously has been going on for quite a while, well by the looks of it 3 years  and nothing reported by PT posters.

  16. What a surprise that is.
    I have a feeling though that they won’t even have known.  So many court cases appeat to happen in total secrecy.

  17. […] = ''; }The Find Madeleine Fund, Website, and TrademarkMalinka -v- Carvalho and Maia HomeAbout UsContact UsPrivacy […]

  18. ”The questioning was hard and outside the PJ, the agents’ irritation could be heard because the questions remained unanswered.”
    That’s from the CdeM article about Malinka and it seems to me to be referring obliquely to the fact he claims they beat him.

    • Did he ever claim he was beaten up? I don’t recall him ever saying that. 

      Not sure how the reporters came to the conclusion that he hadn’t answered the questions: as a witness he was legally obliged to reply.  And how would they have produced a witness statement if he hadn’t? 

      I expect it’s just CdaM’s way of saying that the PJ were doing their job with a “robust” interrogation.

  19. Thanks.

    Having trouble deciphering what that is all about. There’s an oblique reference to the Family Court (a hearing of first instance for something or other?) and it seems to be an appeal for someone (I presume the lady) to be made a co-arguido, which wasn’t granted. I can’t work out who was actually moaning that this arguido status hadn’t been granted. There is a mention of aggravated defamation (which, as far as I can work out would normally be libel against someone with a public function or anyone who is assumed to have a higher standing than mere mortals). If my understanding of that is correct, it is very different from the UK in that respect. Other than that, it all seems to be legal arguments as to why what appears to be an appeal for arguido status was rejected. 

    If I’ve got it upside down, I apologise, but that is all that I can make of it. 

  20. It could well be that that press poked their noses into some private issue at some point and accused someone of public standing of something or other that is somehow related (could even be an insinuation against a lawyer or similar… no idea what this is about).

  21. Thanks for importing the thread, Bren. I’ve bookmarked it. 

    Totally off-topic, but do you remember some time ago we were talking about fake Madeleine donation sites and other related scams?

    While looking for something else (as usual), I found a link to an article on the fake sites. 

    http://www.techshout.com/internet/2007/21/internet-scammers-try-to-cash-in-on-missing-child-madeleine/

Comments are closed.

%d bloggers like this: