During a presentation of his second book, the former inspector revealed how he will respond to the ban on “The Truth of the Lie”
by Joaquim Eduardo Oliveira
Former Polícia Judiciária (PJ) inspector Gonçalo Amaral told 24Horas yesterday that he is already working on the appeal over the judicial decision that this Thursday maintained the ban on his book “Maddie, The Truth of the Lie”, and revealed some of the “aces” that he will use in the protest against the arguments that were used by the judge of the 7th Civil Court Section, Gabriela Cunha Rodrigues.
In the late afternoon, minutes before another session to present his other book, “The English Gag”, in Lisbon – a book that is already in its third edition -, Amaral spoke about the arguments that he will use to fight those that led the magistrate to grant the request of Madeleine McCann’s parents.
“Contrary to what is being announced, the sentence is not as favourable [for the McCanns] as people think”. Amaral even says that by rewriting some of the terms of the first injunction, she has allowed him to “speak about the case, and seriously”.
“By taking the expression “to infer” out of the decision, we are allowed to analyse, for example, the English detectives’ work, the McCann couple’s strategies, and other theses that are neither in the book nor in the documentary”, he alleged.
There is no police officer who doesn’t talk
Gonçalo Amaral also challenges the argument according to which, due to him having been a State agent, he could not express other opinions – allegedly contrary to what had been written in the inquiry’s archiving dispatch.
“There are many State agents, there are State medics who wrote books… that is not the way to limit freedom of expression. There is no police officer, in Portugal or anywhere in the world, who is limited in the full exercise of that freedom”, he said.
Amaral will also allege, in his appeal, the need for a “serious discussion” over the possible use, in Portuguese law, of “the figure of recurso de amparo”, which is practiced in other countries, which allows – for example in the case of injunctions – to appeal directly to the Constitutional Court. Otherwise, he says, “we fear that the path is leading us into previous or a posteriori censorship.”
source: 24Horas, 20.02.2010