former defender of freedom of expression and constitutional rights
Gonçalo Amaral, the former PJ inspector led the investigations of the Maddie Case. He ended up publishing a book in which he defended the thesis of the death of the British child, whose sale would be suspended, after an action brought by the McCanns.
Gonçalo Amaral ended up writing new book, titled "The English Gag". In an interview to i Amaral said that he owes nothing to the British couple and considers the suspension of the sale of his first book a restriction on freedom of expression.
Through their lawyer in Portugal, Isabel Duarte, the McCanns challenge, to i, the position of the former inspector: "Gonçalo Amaral, only acknowledges and poorly, the limits of the the rights of others. The Law and the Constitution contain an essential democratic and imperative rule that orders to respect the reputation of people not convicted criminally. What to say then of two people who were not accused of any crime? Did the book brought an advantage or boost the investigation into the disappearance of our daughter?", they stressed.
Maddie's parents argue that they still have the right to face Gonçalo Amaral "in the courts, whose decisions are sovereign and free". "What comes next, be it in our favour or against us, is not the censorship of other times, it's just a result of applying the rules of democracy, which the author of the book(s) does not seem to appreciate", they added.[translator's note: would the McCanns who didn't even understand the symbolic significance of the red carnations ever use a common Portuguese expression relating to Salazar's regime like 'the censorship of other times'?]
In an interview to i Amaral believes that the Maddie case, who disappeared in the Algarve on May 3, 2007, should not have been made public. [this citation is wrong what Dr. Gonçalo Amaral said was meant in an ironical manner regarding the censorship of his book: «Q: The process is public. .. A: But it should have been censored. If they say that this book, which is based on the process, is defaming, then the process also defames. Why don’t they censor the process itself? It is in circulation… It has been distributed to all journalists.]
in i online newspaper
Este 'direito à resposta' merece umas perguntas dirigidas à Dr. Isabel Duarte: «Quando os seus clientes, o Casal McCann, chamaram aos Portugueses de fascistas terceiro-mundistas que estavam eles a fazer senão a difamar um povo? Quando os seus clientes, o casal McCann acusaram o Dr. Gonçalo Amaral de mentir e de ser uma vergonha que estavam eles a fazer senão a difamar um Cidadão Português? Quando os seus clientes através do media spinner Clarence Mitchell e dos familiares McCann deram a entender que a PJ estava a plantar provas para os culpabilizarem ou a oferecerem acordos de prisão com penas mais baixas em troca de confissões que chama a Dr. Isabel Duarte a isto? Quando os seus clientes tentam banir um livro que é fundamentado numa investigação feita em conjunto por Policias Portugueses e Britânicos, e tentam asfixiar o autor do livro financeiramente de modo a que esse não se possa defender em tribunal que se pode chamar senão censura? E por último como é que uma advogada que pretensamente defendeu a liberdade de expressão (FP25 de Abril) e a liberdade de imprensa, agora passados 35 anos defende a censura, a apreensão inconstitucional de um livro?»
This 'right to reply' deserves some questions aimed at Dr.Isabel Duarte: «When your clients, the McCann couple, called the Portuguese of Third World fascists what were they doing but vilifying the nation? When your clients, the McCanns, accused Dr. Gonçalo Amaral of lying and being shameful what were they doing but defaming a Portuguese citizen? When your clients through their media spinner Clarence Mitchell and the McCann family suggested that the PJ was planting evidence to blame them or that the PJ were offering deals to lower prison sentences in exchange for confessions what does Dr. Isabel Duarte calls to this? When your clients try to ban a book that is fundamented on a jointly investigation by British and Portuguese police, and try to stifle the book's author financially so that he can not defend himself in court, what can this be called but censorship? And finally how does a lawyer who allegedly defended freedom of expression (FP25 April - a far-left terrorist organization) and freedom of press, now 35 years later supports censorship, and the unconstitutional seizure of a book?»