Pulp Fiction.
The main stream media are quick to point out to anybody who is prepared to listen that they have superior fact checking facilities and professional editing which ensures that the news which reaches the general public is fair, accurate, and impartial. This, we are told, is in stark contrast to the merry band of bloggers who are liable to say the first thing which comes into their little heads with no restraint.
How then do we account for this morning’s Daily Mail headline ‘Judge orders Portuguese policeman’s book which claimed Madeleine McCann is dead to be pulped’?
The result of the cash strapped British press taking their stories directly from a press release without checking the facts?
Sloppy editing from a xenophobic British press?
A deliberate attempt to mislead the public?
We shall never know, but what we do know is that no judge has ordered any copies of any Portuguese policeman’s book to be pulped, burnt, torn apart page by page, censored, or any of the other versions to be heard in the wilder reaches of the Internet following that Daily Mail story.
Who can blame the Internet posters for their excesses of temperament when the reliable, authentic, calm and measured voice of the main stream press serve up ‘pulp fiction’ like this?
What has happened is not nearly such a ‘juicy story’ – but, nonetheless, interesting.
Judge Amelia Puna Loupo, sitting in the civil court in Lisbon, was asked to issue a ‘providência cautelar’ , which is a form of restraining injunction to preserve the rights of the petitioning party, preventing the copyright holder, Guerra & Paz, of Gonçalo Amaral’s book ‘Truth about the lie’ – until either Mr Amaral successfully appeals against this order within 30 days or there is a full hearing to determine if the contents of this book are indeed libellous, from making any further sales, or publishing other books and/or videos that defend the same thesis and that are destined for sale or broadcast by any other means in Portugal.
The judge had to balance the freedom of expression and the ‘property rights’ inherent in Copyright against the personal right of the McCann’s to a ‘good name’. It should be a relief to us all that the judge ruled in (temporary) favour of the personal rights prevailing. It would be a sad day for Portuguese justice, and an unpleasant precedent for European justice, if the property rights had prevailed.
In this particular case, the Editor, Guerra & Paz, held the copyright, and this has now been ceded to the McCann’s lawyer, which put simply means that he now has control over where and when the book may be sold in the future. The order requesting that unsold copies of the book be returned to a depository – not pulped – is only valid in Portugal. In the rest of Europe the order is valid in that it prevents any further sale or ceding of copyright to other publishers, simply because the ceding of further rights is unlikely since the copyright holder is currently, and temporarily, the McCann’s lawyer. Not because a Portuguese judge has suddenly acquired powers to ‘censor’ all of Europe.
The same restrictions apply to the video made by Gonçalo Amara which I hosted on this site some weeks ago. The video is no longer available on this site, or any other site legally.
The position of Gonçalo Amaral is an interesting one. Whilst he is now a private citizen, he was once the senior officer in charge of the investigation into the apparent disappearance of young Madeleine. As such he could be said to be an ‘expert witness’ in the legal sense of that term – that an uninformed citizen is entitled to rely upon his advice and opinion as being ‘informed’. Certainly there are many in the UK, particularly in the Internet forums, who have taken his opinion, drawn mainly from the indications given by the specialised dogs and from the results of the inconclusive blood tests, that Madeleine had died in that apartment and that her parents were at least complicit in concealing her death, to be fact. If those indicators had been sufficiently robust to have stood up to judicial examination, her parents would have been charged.
It was the opinion of the Portuguese Attorney General that they were not so sufficiently robust.
The McCann’s would say that with no robust evidence that Madeleine is dead, the search for her should continue, and that is right and proper. It would be quite wrong for ‘opinion’ no matter how informed or compelling, to prevent an even handed approach to searching for her. It would be equally wrong for a court, which must be impartial and fair, to have ruled that ‘opinion’ was so compelling and overwhelming that it should be allowed to gradually colour public opinion to the point where even if someone felt they had evidence as to her whereabouts, there was no point in coming forward ‘because everyone knows she is dead’.
There is evidence that Amaral’s book has so coloured public opinion, not least in the recent furore over the leafleting of homes in the McCann’s neighbourhood, by a group which claims that Madeleine was not abducted, and cites as ‘evidence’ much of the speculation and opinion published in Amaral’s book. The McCann’s have already stated their intention to sue this group for the distress caused by their actions.
Opinion is one thing, as is relating the information based in the files issued by the Portuguese Police force following the archiving of the case, and there has been no attempt by anyone to censor opinion. Stating as fact, and worse, taking direct action based on supposed facts, is quite wrong and unfair on all parties. It is no more true to state as fact that Madeleine was murdered, than it is to say that Madeleine was abducted. Neither statement rests on robust facts.
The only thing that can be stated as fact is that she appears to have disappeared on the night of 3rd May 2007.
Those who would state otherwise as concrete fact would do well to read up on libel law.
There, that wasn’t so hard was it, Daily Mail?
Update: The Daily Mail obviously read the right blogs!………they have today amended their headline to read: ‘Judge bans sales of Portuguese policeman’s book containing ‘unforgivable’ claim Madeleine McCann is dead’. Who says newspapers have nothing to learn from bloggers?
-
1
September 10, 2009 at 12:31 -
Nice to see the spam problem solved, Anna – Salman Rushdie would know a wee bit about this issue:
“What is freedom of expression? Without the freedom to offend, it ceases to exist.”
Personally, I think history demonstrates that banning books is about as sensible as invading Afghanistan, but it could cause a dilemma for any libertarians of the Maccanista persuasion, out there – agreeing with the concept would put one firmly in the fascist/communist (delete as applicable) camp, while only selectively agreeing, as in this particular case, would make one a complete hypocrite. Some catch, that catch-22.
-
2
September 10, 2009 at 12:51
-
-
3
September 10, 2009 at 13:19 -
Well said, Anna. I presume that this has been done because a full hearing could take some time, and that the damage could continue during that time. The temporary ban of thirty days is to give Amaral time to appeal the decision, as is his right. I also presume that his appeal will fail. But since the decision appears to be based on a matter of opinion of a point of law, I could be wrong about this.
-
4
September 10, 2009 at 13:20 -
I’m especially interested in the statement that Madeleine is no more verifiably dead than abducted. Yet the mcCanns continue to enjoy the support of no less than the Leicestershire Police in continuing with that claim (link from their website to the ‘fund’ site). The counter claim has now been suppressed (at least in Portugal). Interesting too how the mainstream media continue to claim abduction – surely this claim also should be the subject of suppression as it too is unfounded and has caused distress to many (for example the unsavioury characters the McCanns have been poinitng the finger at, who also are protected by law are they not?).
The idea that this suppresison is laudable and is a victory for the private individual against property rights is somewhat blinkered. The McCann machine is hardly an example of the ordinary private individual.
The leaflet which contains information and evidence (albeit that some of the evidence will not pass the scrutiny of the legal process)indicative that Madeleine was not abducted can hardly be said to have emanated from Amarals views. The leafelt contains many items that are firmly based in fact.
It is a fact that Kate has been ‘creative’ in her accounts of the night her abandoned child vanished – we saw this on the McCanns own documentary. For example, she noticed a door at a different angle to when she last saw it and this apparently caused her to hesitate before leaving and go to close it (note this did not cause her to check the children, but to go to close the door!). But we also know that Gerald had apparently been back to the apartment in between the time Kate last saw the door position – why then would a different angle suprise her? Although it might be argued that even if we accept that the McCanns were ‘creative’ in describing the alleged frequent checks, this doesnt prove anything else other than neglectful behaviour. But surely anything which slewed the investigation – altered opportunities available to an abductor – would impact on the possibility of their childs recovery from an abductor? Are we really supposed to beleive they are so callous as tohave put their own defence before the chances of such recovery? Is it not more likely that they knew there was no impact- as there was no abductor?
Regarding the legal position, freedom of expression in Europe has an increasingly flawed status. Freedom of expression is not the right of those who have financial clout over and above the rights of those who do not. Neither is it about the ability of the newspapers to print anything they like unless someone with a healthly bank balance doesnt like it.
It is to be hoped that this temporary injunction does result in the next step and perhaps even the questioning in open session of the items which the McCanns claim are libellous (is that actually what they claim? It doesnt seem to me to be so).
-
5
September 10, 2009 at 13:39
-
-
6
September 10, 2009 at 13:23 -
What I condider is highly material is the fact that when the mother was requested to answer questions at the police station under a warning … concerning the disappearance of her daughter Madeline … the mother refused to answer any questions. Any innocent mother (or father) would not have any concern for their own legal safety but only for the truth to emerge with reference to her daughter.
-
7
September 10, 2009 at 13:43
-
-
8
September 10, 2009 at 13:27 -
General comment, Anna, not personal, I assure you – I wouldn’t be that rude to my hostess.
As for “property” v “personal”, you don’t have to be the Brahan Seer to recognise the ultimate aim of this particular action – kerching! Where is Brian Kennedy these days, anyway? -
9
September 10, 2009 at 13:58 -
“As you very well know, there is a difference between me saying
-
10
September 10, 2009 at 14:28
-
-
11
September 10, 2009 at 15:06 -
Will the judicial hearing in Portugal give a fuller public platform for Gon
-
12
September 10, 2009 at 15:18 -
Psst – anyone want to download a book? There’s a “prison barrister” who can help, nudge, nudge, wink, wink, say no more.
-
13
September 10, 2009 at 15:41 -
The whole book is available to read online, in English, here
Sorry Jabba, I’ve had to remove your link – pretty stupid thing to do actually, to put a link to that material in the middle of a discussion on how it has temporarily been ruled potentially libellous.
If you wish to test the libel laws, please do so on your own blog – don’t inflict a libel action on me just because you disagree with the court putting people before property.
Did you really think I would have been so stupid as to not set up a mechanism to catch such links? Do you think I have learnt nothing of how high passions run over this case in the past two and a half years?
Getting my blog closed down for hosting libel isn’t going to find Madeleine is it? -
14
September 10, 2009 at 16:31 -
What is a “prison barrister”?
Is he/she serving a custodial sentence,however please name and shame.Thank you so very much
-
15
September 10, 2009 at 16:35 -
Ha! You don’t fool me with that pathetic disguise, sir – you are Clarence Mitchell and I claim my
-
16
September 10, 2009 at 18:06 -
Sorry to have upset you, it was not my intent.
My understanding is the court order prohibits further new commercial usage with the material, I am unaware that an existing non commercial online repository of a translation is covered by such an order though I am happy to be corrected.
-
17
September 10, 2009 at 18:16
-
-
18
September 10, 2009 at 18:22 -
As you say it is your blog and you must decide where the line is drawn and all visitors must respect that.
-
19
September 10, 2009 at 18:59
-
-
20
September 10, 2009 at 18:52 -
I
-
21
September 10, 2009 at 18:59
-
-
22
September 10, 2009 at 20:15 -
Anna,
We shall see if your reading is correct (re:Sr Amaral’s opinion being considered as having more impact than that of a member of the general public) if the McCanns turn their attention to Tony’s simple pamphlet.
Your interesting analogy of the garage owner is flawed, in my (humble) opinion. Let the buyer beware?
If the McCanns were genuine, I beleive they would tackle the detail of the questions raised against them. I beleive that the rigid adherance to a search is simply an extension of their misdirection – launched the night of their daughters ‘vanishment’.
The law seems to have a very limited scope in this case, limited to financially beneficial claims.
-
23
September 10, 2009 at 21:21
-
-
24
September 10, 2009 at 20:34 -
I
-
25
September 10, 2009 at 20:57 -
Poor Maddy, I wonder what she would think about all this fuss. Surely if she were 6 years old by this time, she might have been able to write a letter and post it somewhere to England? Assuming she could get the money for an envelope and some stamps?
Assuming that she is a bright child of doctor parents Even I could manage that as a four year old.
So many assumptions, so many postulations One does wonder in the end…
-
26
September 10, 2009 at 22:22 -
Anna,
I’m not arguing a libel case – simply presenting an opinion. The McCanns have yet to see the inside of a court room, I suspect that is their primary instruction – ‘keep us out of a court room’!
Anyway, I’d not presume to be able to make a case.
I understand, however, that UK law requires the defendant to prove the accuracy of his or her claims, whereas it is the claimant under Portuguese law.
I also understand that Portuguese law is based on the civil tradition – besides, precedents from the UK would have no authority?
-
27
September 10, 2009 at 22:56
-
-
28
September 10, 2009 at 23:21 -
Let’s get all the books together and have a Bonfire of the Inanities.
-
29
September 12, 2009 at 11:12 -
“In this particular case, the Editor, Guerra & Paz, held the copyright, and this has now been ceded to the McCann
-
30
September 12, 2009 at 13:23
-
-
31
September 12, 2009 at 12:05 -
You’re very wrong on this one, Anna, you say the following “It should be a relief to us all that the judge ruled in (temporary) favour of the personal rights prevailing. It would be a sad day for Portuguese justice(…) – well, Anna you obviously didn’t live under a fascist dictatorship because if you had you would know that one of the most fundamental rights and intrinsic to our nation after 48 years of censorship is indeed Freedom of Expression.
It’s so important that there are several articles who mention this in our Portuguese Constitution.
Having a right to a ”good image” comes second to the right of Freedom of Expression, particularly when you have defamed the other judicial part, when you are the sole causer and seeker of a high profiled mediatic position, when you have resorted to use what are contradictory and incongruent statements – you can read that in my post ‘Where does the Truth Lies?’- to get an injunction similar in a style similar to pre-25th of April 1974 to ban a book and a a documentary which coincidentally, was going to be published in the UK.
You are also wrong when you say misleadingly that the book “gradually colour public opinion ” – well I must say that hue was given by the McCanns, by no one else. And you know that. Both the book and the documentary are based on FACTS validated by the DVD Process, and are not mere opinion as you say, but the outcome of a joint investigation between the Portuguese and British Police, the Interpol, Europol, FBI and the techniques used.
On a personal note, I’m sorry to see that you have removed the documentary from your site – as an British citizen you wouldn’t get any problem whatsoever, while I might, and as an act of civil disobedience and to stand for my fathers and forefathers who fought for my freedom of expression, I did just the opposite, I posted once again the video, and the PDF on the blog. Maybe it’s a cultural thing, maybe we sardine munchers have more backbone than what you Brits thought possible.
-
32
September 12, 2009 at 13:04
-
-
33
September 12, 2009 at 14:15 -
While wary of stepping between the flying handbags, I think you’ll find that the level of “distress” has risen, proportionally, with the level of sales – as always, it’s all about the money, honey.
-
34
September 12, 2009 at 14:53
-
-
35
September 12, 2009 at 18:14 -
That’s why I still prefer to rely on my own, admittedly anachronistic, moral compass, rather than the current sat-nav of expediency – each to their own, I suppose.
-
36
September 13, 2009 at 11:47 -
Anna, thank you for your clear thinking on this legal matter.
It is a very frustrating situation though.
However in blogland we can often be lured into thinking that everybody knows about Amaral’s video, the facts about the disappearance of Madeleine McCann etc but this is not the case. Most of the dead tree press tout the party line on this case. Few people know the facts. Most people only know the spin.
I would appreciate your advice in the following matters:
As a British resident do I have the right to post Amaral’s video on my blog?
Do I have the right to display a link to a site that translates Amaral’s book? -
39
September 13, 2009 at 14:25 -
Thanks Anna for the compliment…
I will check AA Gill’s article.
Unfortunately I’m not in a position to hire legal advice on this. Like most bloggers I don’t get paid…-
40
September 13, 2009 at 14:39
-
-
41
September 13, 2009 at 17:45 -
The conclusions that Mr Amaral describes in his book, as having been reached by the team of investigators at the point in time when he was removed from the investigation into the disappearance of Madeleine McCann, are the same that are described in the process.
We may have been ordered to stop discussing ‘The Truth about the Lie’ – but we are more than free to discuss the contents of the DVD, unless someone is planning on filing a request for an injunction against the Public Ministry’s process.
In mid-September 2007, the PJ’s team states its conclusions: that Madeleine died in apartment 5A on the evening/night of the 3rd of May 2007; that an abduction was simulated and the checking timeline, as reported by the group, was made up; that the child’s parents took part in the concealment of the cadaver; that the PJ is treating the incident as an unfortunate accident, but the parents’ attitude raises suspicions of a more serious cause of death.
It’s in the process, black on white.
Maybe someone should pulp the files, as well.
They are an unsustained, vicious attack against the McCann family’s good name. -
42
September 13, 2009 at 23:41 -
Good evening, Astro.
IMO interesting: an injunction for the PJ files too …
Anna, your educated thoughts, please. -
43
September 14, 2009 at 12:14 -
The Public Prosecutor did not agree with the conclusions of The PJ.
Or at very least, there was insufficient evidence to support these conclusions. Neither did The Public Prosecutor rule out Abduction.
It was said of all three Arguidos that there was no evidence to link any of them to a crime.
What any one person may think of The McCanns or Robert Murat is irrelevant.
-
44
September 15, 2009 at 19:34 -
I also did like this description written by AA Gill.
Still cannot follow you, Ms Raccoon, you are too witty and too fast for the poor French lady I am…
-
45
September 20, 2009 at 12:53 -
vimes, if i were you, i’d invest in an A-Z.
-
46
September 20, 2009 at 15:15 -
So was she murdered by her parents or not? I am confused.
-
47
September 20, 2009 at 15:28 -
Well, I know what the “A” stands for…
-
48
September 20, 2009 at 17:27 -
astro, your post is of course misleading. the PJ did not ‘conlcude’ on the case in 2007, and the one report you refer to (written by an officer who left the force shortly thereafter) bears little resemblance to the final report by the PJ or the legal summary, in which it is made absolutely clear that the PJ cannot conclude on what happened, and that none of the suspicions against the parents were confirmed by the investigation.
those who like to imagine there is ‘more to this than meets the eye’ invariably focus on snippets of the files out of context, or deeply personalised (and prejudicial) evaluations of what is or isn’t ‘proper’ behaviour for the parents of a missing child.
they always ignore the elephant in the room – there is absolutely no coherent or credible account to offer motive, means, opportunity or character history for the parents (and/or friends) to have committed any crime here.
-
49
September 20, 2009 at 19:23 -
It’s a big room – there’s always space for more elephants, even with the 48 already in there. Not to worry, though – once Dangerous Dave tracks Supersnatcher down to his secret lair, in the lawless badlands of the Algarve, it’ll all be over. Clearly, some ex-policemen’s claims are more equal than others, as far as the media are concerned.
-
50
September 20, 2009 at 21:00 -
i’m not interested in the media vimes; nor in your evaluation of whether or not those questions could, should have been, or were answered at that time or any other; nor the prejudicial m assumptions you infer from that; nor indeed in your patronising if touchingly loyal contribution to the reconstruction of PT as the land of the brave and good where the only paedophiles are british tourists and the only lawlessness is done by parents with an unhealthy obsession with stuffing children in freezers… i’m interested in the facts. and diverting from them with an amusing, if empty, ad hom attack on the investigators doesn’t really cut the mustard.
don’t tell me you think THEY are in on the conspiracy too, along with the governments of two nations, the media, the church, the masons, and likely NASA too…
it never fails to amaze me that people account for the statistical unliklihood of an abuction with statistically mind boggling compilations of unsubstantiated speculations piled one atop the other in order to make the frame fit.
or are reduced to delighting themselves and the rest of us with their ‘ nudge nudge wink wink say no more’ type of suspicions.
-
51
September 20, 2009 at 21:05 -
and yes, to the best of my knowledge Dave Edgar wasn’t sacked for unprofessional behaviour, charged and convicted of one criminal offence (in a very similar and largely discredited case), awaiting trial on a second criminal charge (relating to said other suspiciously similar case), and currently failing to fend off a defamation suit…. which might possibly be why no-one invests much credibility in amaral’s handling or conclusions about the case… not to mention their incompatibility with the evidence, or the final reports..
but if you want to invest your hopes in him, and whinge that he isn’t treated as ‘credible’ , far be it from me to do anything but laugh at you.
-
52
September 20, 2009 at 21:22 -
If you’re not interested in the media, Snoop, then you’ve come to the wrong blog – have a look at the top right of the page for a clue. Still, glad to be of service – laughter is the best medicine, after all.
-
53
September 20, 2009 at 21:37 -
thats ok. better than coming to the wrong conclusions.
i’m not sure which part of ‘the media’ you think ought to be treating amaral with credibility….or why…. but i don’t exepct you to answer, seeing as you’ve avoided everything else, why stop now! carry on up the khyber!
-
54
September 20, 2009 at 22:01 -
You seemed to have missed the point, my friend – it’s not about whether one considers Amaral “credible” or not, it’s about whether he should be prevented from expressing his views. Given that most of the media are prepared to accept every utterance from Mitchell and Edgar without question (Hewlett, Australia and now the “lawless” Algarve, to name the last 3 “theories”), it’s a simple case of double standards. Admittedly, given the appallingly low standard of mainstream media coverage of the case to date, it’s neither surprising, or unexpected, but it is fair game for comment. As for Amaral’s book, I haven’t read it, so I can’t comment on its content – I do, however, support his right to publish it, if he can support his claims. If he can’t, then he’ll have to face the consequences, but that’s his business, not mine.
-
55
September 20, 2009 at 22:14 -
it was you who decided to compare ‘credibility’….
as to whether amaral should be prevented from expressing his views, well, i guess it depends how much damage he is doing with them really. someone muttering darkly on an internet backwater is hardly a concern to anyone. once they are directly impacting on the lives of those they accuse, then it seems to me reasonable that they should be held to account for their actions.
as for ‘supporting his claims’, the only way amaral could do this is if he has ‘secret’ evidence that has been witheld from the files and the investigation, which in itself would be a criminal act in perverting the course of justice. his claims far exceed the conlcusions or the content of the DVD files, and are based on what is either a misunderstanding or a misrepresentation of the forensic evidence and other evidence, and a large dose of rather nasty insinuation.
and since you broadly support his thesis, i would have thought it would be of interest to you whether there was anything in it or not. why don’t you come and debate it at PFA?
-
56
September 20, 2009 at 22:28
-
-
57
September 20, 2009 at 22:37 -
excuse me, i’m not ‘recruting’ i’m trying to have a discussion! can i have it here, or not??
and anyway, in the pick up stakes, i think its vimes you wanna watch out for, i seen him in action before..
-
58
September 20, 2009 at 22:41
-
-
59
September 20, 2009 at 22:43 -
well thats fine then. i’m quite happy here, its vimes who seemed to think i was off topic.
and i’m not a ‘troublemaker’ if you don’t mind. i’ve only ever wanted to debate on topic on this case.
and thanks for the welcome.
-
60
September 21, 2009 at 19:51 -
marvellous.
well that was the end of that. how convenient.
-
61
September 24, 2009 at 09:24 -
“The judge had to balance the freedom of expression and the
-
62
September 24, 2009 at 10:11
-
-
63
September 24, 2009 at 10:32 -
Unfortunately, the version I have found is not complete and misses, in fact, the arguments of the judge and the names of the defendants (it has the decision only), so I cannot quote it. But paragraph a) and b), that refers to “sales” and “editions”, addresses “as Requeridas” (in the feminin plural, meaning obviously the societies “Guerra e Paz” and “Valentim de Carvalho” and the following paragraphs, that refer to copyrights and royalties and mention broader prohibitions, as I said, address “o Requerido e as Requeridas”, masculin singular and feminin plural. I can’t imagine “o Requerido” being anybody else but Amaral.
Sorry, I think your whole reasoning is based on false premises…
-
64
September 26, 2009 at 18:02 -
I have just realized that the AP version of the injunction decision (at least as it is reproduced in the Guardian and other places) is quite wrong when it says:
“The injunction, granted today after a hearing last week, means Amaral has to ensure that all unsold copies of the book are removed from shops and warehouses across Europe…”
and
“The injunction forces copyright for the book and the film to be passed to the McCanns’ lawyer.”
The judge orders the unsold copies of books and videos in shops and wharehouses to be collected by the editors and delivered to the McCanns’ lawyer, who will be their depositary. Nothing else. No mention of “Europe” (although they are indeed forbidden to pass the copyrights to anybody else in the world), and certainly no mention of the McCanns getting the copyright of the book and video.
Another example of two parallel worlds divided by language… -
65
October 15, 2009 at 16:03 -
My difficulty with this is that I think that Amaral was positioned to take the fall if things got difficult for the Portuguese Establishment.
I seem to remember that the suave de Souza headed rapidly over the hill as soon as he realised he would be squeezed between a rock
( the media) and a hard place ( The Establishment).So Amaral does have some small sympathy from me – even though I don’t like his tactics. But what he hasn’t realised is that it wasn’t the McCanns who did the stitching.
I can see why he would want to tell his side of the story, even though I believe he may have embellished certain facts, to get the book published.
The initial policework wasn’t exactly as we know and love it on crime dramas.
But I don’t think anyone should be too hard on the GNR involved, as they were basically seaside policepersons, working on a low budget and personpower , used to children wandering off – and being found – and certainly unused to this level of public scrutiny.
The fingerprinting of the window, without protective gear is the image that sticks in my mind.
But once evidence from the flat was unpreserved, whether it was design of the Tapas 9… or lack of competence by the GNR, it doesn’t matter who or what – it was always going to be an uphill task for anyone picking up the investigation.
By the time Amaral took charge, it was almost certain that Madeleine McCann wouldn’t be found in the near future, so IMO the chalice was well and truly poisoned.
Amaral would have certainly been an excellent choice of scapegoat. Does anyone really think that the Portuguese government would have put this internationally reknowned case in the hands of one man?
And that there wasn’t heavy supervision as to what exactly he would be allowed to do and say- even to external organisations?
I also think that it is a pity that his book went to press without working out that it was best not to state that he knew Madeleine was dead. His viewpoint to the background to the workings of the case were interesting enough.
Even if he thought she was dead, it was an opinion- not a fact. Although, of course, he may not have sold so many books without this fundamental statement.
He doesn’t know what happened to her. Nobody does. And it is what sullies his arguments in the rest of the book because where there is one big incorrect statement, the percentage IMO is that there are usually others.
Logically, and for compassion’s sake, it has to be assumed that she is still alive, even though the probability is that she isn’t.
And if you don’t think that this should be the case for those tricky tennis-playing McCanns – what about her grandparents, family and other people who loved her?
Surely they deserve to be able to continue to believe that there is some hope – even if it is a tiny one.
And that, surely, is why the judge made his decision.
-
66
October 27, 2009 at 14:18 -
I have reread your post in the light of the latest developments made public: it has been reported that the McCanns lawyer obtained a (second?) injunction on Amaral’s company (not on himself, according to his own lawyer) to freeze any assets that it might hold; Amaral claimed that this was done to prevent his legal defense (as the legal taxes for contestation, appeal, etc, proportionate to the 1.2 million euros of damages asked by the McCanns, would amount to a couple thousand euros); some time later, Expresso reported with great detail on Amaral’s financial problems (debts, garnishment or tax lien on his house, etc); then we hear that Amaral asked to be exempt from legal tax for contesting the injunction(s?), and that that was granted temporarily while the court appreciated his request. The reason why assets were frozen, and why they were parked in a company in the first place, starts to be quite clear.
In the meantime, it has been suggested (but not in the press), that 1) the main process for defamation (that would have to be introduced either before the injunction or after, in a certain delay) was never introduced against the editors (and the delay has expired; 2) that the whole process was started after the change of legislation on legal taxes, that seems to make certain litigations more expensive; 3) the 1.2 million of damages asked is an amount unheard of in Portugal.
If all this is true, it seems to me that it has never been a matter of commercial rights against personality rights. The crux of the matter was “the prohibition of the defendants to issue a reproduction or comment, opinion or interview where such thesis is defended or can be inferred”, the copyright question being an accessory: as far as the editors are concerned, this seems to be the Portuguese equivalent of a settlement out of court (with no costs for the editors), as they are certainly more amenable to see where their interests lay than a policeman stung in his honour.
Now, we can still argue about the relative importance of freedom of expression and defense from defamation. But I certainly dislike the idea of money being used to prevent that kind of discussion taking place in court.
As for “property” v “personal”, you don’t have to be the Brahan Seer to recognise the ultimate aim of this particular action – kerching! Where is Brian Kennedy these days, anyway?
{ 66 comments }