13 Comments

Finally… the truth emerges about those books

booksThe truth emerges.  No matter how long and how hard you try, you never can escape the truth.  And the truth is finally out in the open.

Yes the truth about these books that were banned and were supposed to be returned to the Publishers, so that they can put them back on sale.

Back in August of this year I wrote a post called The Book of Myths, and now we have Claudia confirming what I and others have been saying for months, weeks and days, Goncalo Amaral does NOT own the books that were confiscated.

She states (screenshot):

I personally spoke to GA about this and I know what I’ve been told. The Publisher is the one which has to demand the return of the books because they belonged to them. I know what the DIAP is.

If only people had been honest from the beginning and told their members or their readers the whole truth that Goncalo Amaral does NOT own the books the publishers do; many people would have realised that all this claiming he does was just a myth and forum gossip.

Why are people so willing to hide the truth?  Is it for fear that people might actually read the files and understand that a lot of the stuff coming out of Portugal was just spin and not fact?

Mind you, further on Claudia does reveal and dispose of another myth that is circulating.  That myth being that when the Court upheld his appeal and said the books can go on sale, it didn’t mean that the libel trial was dead in the water and that the ruling back in Octorber 2010 also meant that the book was not libellous.  As is proven in this post (screenshot):

And I am telling you that not being a legal expert, I’ve asked GA himself about this. So no sarcasm at all. Just telling you where it came from. I have no idea if you know how the Portuguese legal system works. But if you do/did, then you would understand what I meant when I said nothing will be done if there isn’t an active approach to getting the books returned. At least until the libel trial has an outcome and all the appeals are exhausted.

Again what have we been saying/ Ye he won the appeal on the right to have an opinion, not whether his opinion was libellous or not, that is yet to be determined. As we now know that the actual Libel trial is being heard in February 2012, when 2 court hearing dates have been confirmed for the 9th and 10th. Those dates are the dates allocated by the Court for the Judge to listen to evidence and pass verdict as to whether Goncalo Amaral’s book is in fact libellous.

Just one more thing, now the lawyers for the Publishers, the TV company and Film-maker, hopefully along with the lawyes of Goncalo Amaral, will explain to their respective clients what is at stake should they lose the case and perhaps now would be the time to say offer an out of court settlement.

And it doesn’t look like the publishers have much faith in winning the Libel trial does it?

Think about it, nothing sells better than a banned book, yet these books still sit somewhere other than a book sellers shelves.

Of course we also have to remember that when that book was Published back in July 2008, just a few days, after the archiving, the publishers or lawyers did not have a chance to read the actual Police Files.  I do wonder if they are now regretting advancing a fee and publishing that book now that the actual files are available.

Even Sandra Felgueiras changed her opinion back in 2009 when she read the files, we know this from a post by miffed taken from MCF forum (screenshot):

“Bouncy- 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.

This was back in November 2009, and still there is no translation or a copy of that interview I can find.  All we have is what miffed saw and from what miffed posted it doesn’t bode well in the anti camp does it?  Especially as miffed stated that Sandra stated in the interview that she  made a beeline for the forensics and what she read  shocked her.

Advertisements

13 comments on “Finally… the truth emerges about those books

  1. Hi Bren

    Well, credit to Claudia for actually confirming that point. Clarifying myths isn’t usually a strong point in yonder corners. 

  2. I agree, credit where credit is due, let us just hope it lays that myth to bed once and for all.

    I see after last nights exposure from yonder about the carry-ons re the admin account someone is now green today.

    I do wonder how long the charade would have continued if it had not been exposed on twitter.

    Why do they want to play these games Carana?  You know I can’t even be bothered to argue with the idiots on twitter at the moment.  Nothing you say or do will ever convince them they might have things totally wrong.

    They will walk forever and a day blinded to the truth.

  3. On one of my rare forays onto the #McCann tag, I noticed that even if links to facts are posted by regular posters, certain people state systematically that they won’t open them, declaring that they probably lead to sites of a dubious/illegal nature. 

    Being cautious about links is one thing, but this systematic attitude towards anything that does not relate to the 3-4 statements that they must have framed over the dining table is total rubbish. Worse, that kind of innuendo prevents any newcomers (or those who lost track some time ago) from daring to check the facts for themselves. 

  4. Hi Carana, yes that is part of the game, make people weary of opening links.  Links that even have the PJ files are given the same treatment.

    Another game now being played by the nasty RothleyPillow is when anybody asks them a question they straight away accuse them of be either a McCann cult terrorist, or a pervert and accuses them of grooming them.  Totally sick and totally pathetic behaviour.

  5. Hope Sabot doesn’t mind me nicking this from JATYK2 but she sums up the lifting of the book ban perfectly.
    Sabot said:

    I repeat, and it is quite simple. That Court decided that Amaral’s book could not be banned until deemed Libellous in Law. Which has not happened yet.

    To reiterate. You cannot deprive anyone of Free Speech until it is proven that a person has exceeded their Right to Free Speech by Libelling someone. Only a Court of Law can decide if Libel has occurred.

    The Judge who lifted the ban did spout some rubbish about no harm being done, but it was never his place to decide, and nor was he asked to.

    I never had a problem with the ban being lifted because it made sense to me. Free Speech is a Right, and has to be proven to have been abused.

    But strange to say, no one was racing to put those books back on the shelves. Least of all The Publishers who had some fair old stake in this.

  6. You are correct in highlighing the apparent unwillingness of the publishers to put the books back on sale (even, apparently, to have them in their possession).

    That decision on their part may result from the fact that the ban on the books is completely separate from the libel trial proper.  This trial at which the publishers, a TV company and a film company are all being called to account alongside Goncalo Amaral by the McCanns has not yet taken place. 

    The claim by the McCanns, as I understand it, is that Goncalo Amaral has libellously stated that Madeleine is dead and that her parents were involved in the hiding of her body.  They further claim that this alleged libel has the potential to damage the search for their child.

    The judgement regarding the injunction related only to the right of Goncalo Amaral to express an opinion within the books. The decision of the court of appeal was that he has the right (largely based on two factors – experience as a police officer and the human right to hold opinions) to express an opinion.

    Clearly he has expressed that opinion and has himself made it apparent in his book that it is only a thesis and he presents only indicative evidence in the book, not proof of the claim.  However he may have gone on beyond the book to express more pointedly his beliefs on television and in his film (hence the other people called to defend their actions). As yet no judgement has so far been made on the question of whether those beliefs expressed so publicly are libellous.

    The hearing in February (if the dates offered by Astro turn out to be accurate) will look at the specific accusation of libel. 

    At this hearing there are two possibilities. Goncalo Amaral will be able to prove to the satisfaction of the judge his thesis that Madeleine is dead and the parents were complicit in the hiding of the body. He will need to present clear unequivocal evidence of this.  The only way of proving this as a fact will be to hand over further evidence in addition to the publicly available police files as there is not sufficient evidence there (see the Prosecutors final decision and dog handler’s report) to determine death or parental involvement in a crime.

    The other option is that Goncalo Amaral will not be able to provide further evidence and therefore will not be able to prove his claims. In that instance he will be guilty of libel.

    Of course the question arises where would Goncalo Amaral find such further evidence? If it were in the un-released section of the files then why did neither the prosecutor nor the more senior and more-experienced Rebelo not use such evidence and come to such a definitive conclusion as Amaral? Regarding the other option that he may have some secret “ace up his sleeve” evidence to prove death and parental complicity, then I am sure the judge will rightly be wondering why such evidence has remained beyond the reach of the other investigating officers on the case, especially taking into account his removal back in 2007 when he no longer had any remit in this matter.

    • Hiya JJP, well put.  Hope you are keeping well. Yes there are a lot questions that need answering and all his “I have an ace up my sleeve” crap is nothing but nonsense.

      Why would anybody withhold information that could result in Madeleine McCann being found, other than for their own purposes.

      Anyone that knows anything and does nothing, is no better than the person that harmed her in the first place.

  7. Hi JJP

    What you wrote sounds logical and well expressed. However, I’m scratching my head about something. (I may, of course, be looking at the wrong articles in the civil code – if so, sorry in advance.)

    For what it’s worth: if, indeed, it is a civil suit, the key bit in the civil code (assuming that this is the up-to-date version) would seem to be Article 484, originally found here: http://www.aacs.pt/legislacao/codigo_civil.htm

    A seemingly credible translation:
    Art. 484 (Action injurious to personal standing or good name): Whoever affirms or disseminates a fact capable of prejudicing the credit or good name of any person, private individual or legal person, is responsible for the damage caused. (p. 6 pdf)

    http://www.estig.ipbeja.pt/~ac_direito/European_Principles_Tort_Law_Portugal.pdf

    However, I’m not sure if Art. 484 is dependent – or not – on Art. 483:

    Art. 483 Whoever, whether by wilful misconduct (dolus) or by negligence unlawfully infringes the rights of another person or any legal provision intended to safeguard the interests of others, must compensate the injured party for damage arising from such violation. (p. 7 of pdf)

    All a bit confusing… 

    And I’m not sure who bears the burden of proof (see also p. 13 of the pdf). 

    I do stress that I could be totally wrong (as I really don’t know). However, just to pursue my thought to the end:

    If the burden of proof is on the plaintiffs, then presumably they would have to prove the damage caused. 

    If – in addition – Art.483 comes into play, they may have to prove than any damage caused was due to negligence (or wilful misconduct). It would, presumably, then be up to the defendants to refute that any damage was caused and, if any had been, that it was not due to negligence (or wilful misconduct).

    If – and again if – that is the case, I am wondering whether it could totally skip the issue of whether allegations were true or not. 

  8. I’d forgotten this: 

    The Media Select Committee with quite a few pages on the McCann media saga. 

    http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm200910/cmselect/cmcumeds/362/362i.pdf

  9. As far as I can work out, in UK media law… several heads would be presented as steak tartare. However, this seems less obvious in Portuguese law. 

  10. Again – I don’t know. Thinking aloud. In Portuguese law, would the issue be about whether the allegations can be substantiated or not, or would it be about the damage done?

    Thinking about this another way. If I believed everything that the defendants had proposed were  true… would I (anyone) continue to contribute anything that I thought to be suspicious, particularly concer ning an external party – to whomever is looking for her? 

    Quite probably not if I had been convinced that there was no longer any point in being vigilant.

  11. I think the only thing I have ascertained Carana, about Portuguese Law, I think the McCanns have to prove that the book and his thesis have hindered the search for Madeleine.  I know in the UK it is the opposite to what happens in Portugal.  So I take it the onus is on the McCanns to prove.

    However, if they call those same witnesses, especially the public prosecutor, who said there is a 50/50 chance along with the PJ Final report, I can’t see how any court could rule that in Amarals favour.

    In chapter one, according to AnnaEsse’s translation, he states categorically she is dead and his book is about the death of a child.

  12. And it seems the publishers have  purchased the copyright as well, so Amaral can’t get it translated into English 

    Well that is according to Carolina on MM

Comments are closed.

%d bloggers like this: