4 February 2010

The Temporary Injunction: Granted on September 9, 2009

This is a translation of the text of the Civil Court ruling that granted the temporary injunction on Gonçalo Amaral’s book, ‘Maddie – The Truth of the Lie’, and the corresponding DVD. It was issued on the 9th of September, 2009. The numbered notes [x] are from astro, for clarification purposes only. It should also be recalled that this injunction was granted exclusively based on the evidence that was provided by the Applicants. The Defendants were only allowed to oppose the injunction after it had been granted.

CONCLUSION – 09-09-2009

In this process of common injunction that is being handled at this court and section under the number 1143/09.0TVLSB, the Court decides to reply to the factual matter that appears in the initial request, and that has been subject to proof in fulfilment of the Appeals Court Decision [article 13, in the factual segment that appears on page 15 of said decision, articles 58 to 67 and 92 of the corrected initial request] [1], as follows:

Article 13: Not proved;

Article 58: Not proved;

Article 59: Proved that curricular pieces concerning the first Defendant [2] are published on the internet, referring to him as an honest, structured, socially accepted man, namely for the performance of political posts;

Article 60: Proved that the media focus hit the first Defendant;

Article 61: Proved;

Article 62: Proved that the first Defendant knows the meaning and the extent of an archiving dispatch within a criminal process;

Article 63: Proved that the first Defendant knows who holds power over the inquiry, who can open or reopen it, and under which circumstances that can be done;

Article 64: Proved that the first Defendant knows what defamation and injury are;

Article 65: Proved that the first Defendant knows what it means not to be at the service of criminal investigation;

Article 66: Proved that the first Defendant has professional experience and is of adult age;

Article 67: Proved that by divulging his thesis about the events of the 3rd of May, 2007, in Praia da Luz, the first Defendant, with the assistance of the three other Defendants [3], saw his person promoted and earned money.

Also proved that the first Defendant wished to intervene in local political life.

Article 92 – Proved that the Defendants intend to disseminate the book and the DVD all over the world, earning financial, commercial and social profit, deepening the suffering of the two first Applicants [4] and rendering the search for the third Applicant [5] more difficult.

**

For the preceding decision concerning the matter of fact, the Court has pondered the documents that have been appended to the process, as well as the depositions from the questioned witnesses [6], in the segments in which they revealed direct knowledge about the facts that they were questioned upon. The Court has also used judicial presumptions, namely in the answers to articles 60 and 62 to 66.

Concerning the depositions of witnesses 1 to 4, it has to be noted that those have been essentially characterised by the transmission of their opinions, deductions and personal convictions. It was nevertheless revealed that they manifested direct knowledge of the increase in difficulties and obstacles to the ongoing private investigation that searches for the third Applicant, which is being promoted by the first and the second Applicants, each time that new editions or the announcement of future editions of the book, interviews with the first Defendant, or divulgations of the DVD take place.

The depositions, especially from the third and fourth witnesses, were equally considered, concerning the direct knowledge that they demonstrated over the intensification of the suffering of the first and second Applicants, each time de first Defendant’s thesis was newly divulged – whether through the existence or the announcement of a new edition of the book, or a new divulgation of the video or by the occurrence of interviews – mainly due to the repercussions that such events have on the search for the whereabouts of the third Applicant and due to potentiating the knowledge of said thesis by the fourth and the fifth Applicants [7].

Concerning the fifth witness, although her knowledge of the facts that she was questioned about comes from a set of investigative tasks that tend to sustain the allegation that is made in this injunction, what is certain is that, together with the documents that have been appended to the process, it was possible to establish that the book in question has already been subject to a Spanish edition in May 2009, a French one in June 2009, a German one (also for the Swiss and Austrian markets) in June 2009, then an Italian and a Dutch one, and Defendant ‘Guerra e Paz’ has also launched an edition in Brazil [8].

This is, in synthesis, the basis for the previous decision concerning the matter of fact.

**

REPORT

The five Applicants move the present injunction against the duly identified Defendants on page 38 [given the fact that the initial request with the corrected numbering, which has been appended on 20/05/2009, is being attended to], alleging, in synthesis, that the first Defendant’s thesis about the events that took place in Praia da Luz in May 2007 – which relate to the disappearance of the third Applicant, which took place at that time -, which have been put into the book that he authored, that was published by the second Defendant, that sustains the video that was produced and marketed by the third Defendant and was broadcast by the fourth Defendant as a television documentary, have already violated several rights of all of the Applicants and cause them fear of future, serious and hardly repairable damage of the following rights:

a) The rights of Madeleine (the third Applicant) to her moral and physical integrity and to a fair and adequate investigation into her disappearance, in the future;

b) The rights of Sean and Amelie (the fourth and fifth Applicants) to their moral and physical integrity and to a fair and adequate investigation into the disappearance of their elder sister, in the future, as well as their right to the reservation of private and family life and to the good name of the family that they belong to, their right to freedom and to security;

c) The rights of Kate and Gerald McCann (the first and second Applicants) to their image, to their good name, to their good reputation and to the preservation of the integrity of their private and family life, their right to freedom and security, the right to their moral integrity, the right not to be treated in a degrading, cruel or inhumane way, the right to enjoy, like any other citizen, the guarantees of the penal process.

On these fundaments, they conclude by requesting the determination of the following measures:

a) The prohibition of sale and the order to seize, for destruction, the books and the videos that are still left at shops or any other deposits or warehouses;

b) The prohibition to execute new editions of the book or the video, or of other books and/or videos, that defend the same already criticised thesis, and that are destined to be sold or divulged by any means, in Portugal;

c) The prohibition to cede the editing rights or the author rights on the contents of the book or the video, or of any other books and videos on the same subject, for publication in any part of the world;

d) The prohibition to cite, to analyse or to comment, verbally or in writing, on parts of the book or of the video that defend the thesis of death of the third Applicant or of the concealment of her body, by the two first Applicants;

e) The prohibition to reproduce any comment, opinion or interview, where said thesis is defended or can be inferred;

f) The prohibition to publish statements, photographs, or any other documents that are allegedly connected to said book and video or said thesis.


According to what was established by the Appeals Court’s Decision and considering what has resulted from the production of evidence during trial, the following FACTS are proved in an indicative way:

1 – On the 24th of July of 2008, the first Defendant launched in Portugal, under edition of the second Defendant that reserved all rights to itself, the book that he has authored, “Maddie A Verdade da Mentira”;

2 – In that book, the first Defendant defends the thesis of death of the third Applicant and the concealment of her cadaver by the first and second Applicants;

3 – Said book attained 4 editions until the end of July of 2008, 9 editions until the end of August of 2008, and 12 editions until the end of September of 2008;

4 – Each edition was of 10.000 copies;

5 – Presently the book is sold out at practically all points of sale;

6 – When said book was published, the first Defendant gave interviews to all of the media that requested him to, namely to RTP [9], and defended the thesis that he presents in the book, in those interviews;

7 – The first Defendant also gave, among others, an interview to newspaper “Correio da Manhã”, which was published on the 24th of July of 2008, in which he defended the thesis that he presents in the book;

8 – At the beginning ot May of 2009, the same book was published in France, now under the title “Maddie, L’Enquête interdite: Les revelations du commissaire portugais chargé de l’enquête”;

9 – The first Defendant gave countless interviews to several media in France, including the one that was published in the newspaper “Le Parisien” and on the matching internet site;

10 – In those interviews, the first Defendant again mentioned the theses that he presents in the book;

11 – The book’s French edition is systematically and profusely published on the internet, at least on:

http://joana-morais.blogspot.com/2009/05/goncalo-amaral-maddie-lenquete.html

hhtp://sosmaddie.dhblogs.be/archive/2009/05/09/Maddie-1-enquete-interdite-en-belgique1.html

http://www.the3arguidos.net/forum/viewtopic.php?f=35&t=31806&sid=abe61a1c34b42a74ad5a2e50f315c20d&start=0

hhtp://twitturly.com/url/a194ef0f54f1985133b2ff092ddcf75d

http://www.bourin.editeur.fr/livre/maddie-1-enquete-interdite-les-revelations-du-commissaire-portugais-charge-de-1-enquete.html

http://www.amazon.fr/Maddie-lenq%C3%AAte-interdite-Amaral-G/dp/2849411256

http://www.decitre.fr/livres/Maddie-l-enquete-enterdite.aspx/9782849411254;

12 – Between the publication of the Portuguese edition, on 24/07/2008, and the publication of the book’s French edition, in May of 2009, the fourth Defendant broadcast a television programme that was produced by the third Defendant, that reserved the possession of the corresponding rights for itself;

13 – The first broadcast of said television programme took place on the 13th of April of 2009;

14 – The second broadcast of this television contents took place on the 12th of May of 2009;

15 – That programme was broadcast in Portugal at least those two times;

16 – That programme/video is intrinsically based on the contents of the book “Maddie A Verdade da Mentira”;

17 – In that video the first Defendant again sustains his thesis, that the third Applicant is no longer alive, that her death took place inside the “Ocean Club” apartment and that the parents, the first and second Applicants, concealed their daughter’s cadaver;

18 – At least two million and two hundred thousand people watched that programme’s first broadcast;

19 – In late April of 2009, the DVD that corresponds to that programme started being sold, with the title and the subtitle «Maddie A Verdade da Mentira – Um poderoso documentário baseado no best seller “A Verdade da Mentira” de Gonçalo Amaral» [10];

20 – 75.000 copies of that DVD were put on sale;

21 – The DVD is publicised, at least, on the third Defendant’s website;

22 – The first and the second Applicants are married to each other and the parents of the third, the fourth and the fifth Applicants;

23 – In the Criminal Inquiry in which the first and the second Applicants were made arguidos, an archiving dispatch was issued concerning them, as per appended copy, pages 145-173;

24 – Madeleine Beth McCann has been missing since the 3rd of May of 2007;

25 – There are curricular pieces published on the internet, concerning the first Defendant, referring to him as an honest, structured, socially accepted man, namely for the performance of political posts;

26 – The focus of the media has hit the first Defendant;

27 – The abovementioned curricula (item 25) reveal a man who “studied engineering”, obtained a university degree in juridical and criminal sciences and was a PJ agent/inspector for 27 years;

28 – The first Defendant knows the meaning and the extent of an archiving dispatch within a criminal process;

29 – The first Defendant knows who holds power over the inquiry, who can open or reopen it, and under which circumstances that can be done;

30 - The first Defendant knows what defamation and injury are;

31 - The first Defendant knows what it means not to be at the service of criminal investigation;

32 - The first Defendant has professional experience and is of adult age;

33 - By divulging his thesis about the events of the 3rd of May, 2007, in Praia da Luz, the first Defendant, with the assistance of the three other Defendants, saw his person promoted and earned money.

34 - The first Defendant wished to intervene in local political life.

35 - The Defendants intend to disseminate the book and the DVD all over the world, earning financial, commercial and social profit, deepening the suffering of the two first Applicants and rendering the search for the third Applicant more difficult.


OF THE LAW

From the Applicants’ allegation, it becomes clear that they understand that several of their rights – all within the scope of personality rights – have already been violated by the divulgation of the first Defendant’s thesis concerning the events that are related to the third Applicant’s disappearance in May of 2007. A thesis according to which the third Applicant would have passed away on the 3rd of May of 2007 in the Praia da Luz apartment, and her cadaver concealed by the first and second

After the production of evidence, performed in fulfilment of the Decision, it was established that the book that was authored by the first Defendant [and although after the injunction was interposed] was in the meantime the subject of a Spanish edition in May of 2009, a French one in June of 2009, a German one (also for the Swiss and Austrian markets) in June of 2009, and later on, an Italian and a Dutch one, and the Defendant “Guerra e Paz” also launched an edition in Brazil, facts that allow for the conclusion that the Defendants intend to disseminate the book and the DVD over the world, obtaining financial, commercial and social profit (cfr. answer to article 92).

On the other hand, it resulted demonstrated that the dissemination of those materials (book and DVD) deepens the suffering of the two first Applicants and renders the search for the third Applicant more difficult (cfr. answer to article 92): each time the first Defendant’s thesis is newly divulged, the suffering of the first and second Applicants intensifies – whether through the existence or the announcement of a new edition of the book, or a new divulgation of the video or by the occurrence of interviews – mainly due to the repercussions that such events have on the search for the whereabouts of the third Applicant and due to potentiating the knowledge of said thesis by the fourth and the fifth Applicants.

Thus translates the threat of future lesions or the worsening of those already verified to the Applicants’ personality rights.

The protection of personal integrity in its two dimensions, physical and moral, is consecrated by the Constitution (cfr. article 25, number 1 of the CRP [11]), and it should be articulated with other means for the protection of personal rights, such as those foreseen in number 1 of article 26 of the Constitution, that is, the rights to personal identity, to the development of personality, to civil capacity, to citizenship, to the good name and reputation, to image, to word, to the reservation of intimacy of private and family life, and to legal protection against any form of discrimination, constituting the fundamental seat of the designated general personality right, as well as the direct expression of the basic postulate of human dignity as admitted in article 1 of the Constitution, a basic value and the first reference in the matter of fundamental rights.

The ordinary law, on the other hand, generically names, in article 70 number 1 of the Civil Code, the defence of individuals against illicit threats of offences against their physical and moral personality (from that mention and from the precepts that are subsequent to it, one infers the existence of a certain set of rights that are connected to personality, as the right to image, to the reservation of private intimacy, the right to a good name and reputation), with number 2 foreseeing that the person that has been threatened or offended can request the injunctions that are adequate to the case’s circumstances, with the purpose of avoiding the consummation of the threat or to attenuate the effects of the already committed offence.

On the other hand, number 1 of article 381 of the Civil Process Code, and concerning non specified injunctions, establishes that whenever someone shows a based fear that someone else causes a serious and hardly repairable lesion to his or her right, that parson can request the conservatory or anticipatory injunction that is specifically adequate to ensure the effectiveness of the threatened right.

By handling the preceding juridical considerations with the established facts, the objective fulfilment of the conditions for the establishment of the injunction that is destined to safe keep the Applicants’ rights is verified.

Nevertheless, and just as mentioned in the Appeals Court’s Decision, one must pay attention to an eventual conflict of rights.

In fact, both the writing of the book, and its divulgation and that of the thesis that is defended in it, namely through the DVD and through interviews, configure the exercise of freedom of expression, and as far as the third Defendant is concerned, also that of freedom of the press and the media.

Those rights of the Defendants, as well as those of the Applicants that were noted above and that are at stake, have equal constitutional standing, and therefore it is peacefully understood that when there is a conflict in their exercise by different holders, and because there is no relationship of predominance of one towards the other, one must seek within the circumstances of the specific case, the fair measure of contraction of one of them, or even of both, in order to render the adequate exercise of each one of those rights viable. That solution is contained in article 335 number 1 of the Civil Code.

Therefore, taking into account that the thesis that is presented by the first Defendant, through the adequate means that are placed at his disposal by the other Defendants, raises the suspicion of the involvement of the first and second Applicants in the practice of criminal actions, albeit in a negligent way, among the general public, and that they, having been made arguidos at a given point in time, saw the criminal inquiry archived in relation to them, one has to conclude that it must be the rights of the Defendants that cede to the rights of the Applicants.

On the other hand, the divulgation of the thesis that the third Applicant passed away on the 03/05/2007 raises difficulties for the investigation into what happened and the search for her whereabouts. The contrary hypothesis that is defended by the Applicants, that the third Applicant is still alive, must be taken into account, and if it is verified, then her life and her wellbeing may depend on the search for her whereabouts, and these rights of her must also make those of the Defendants cede.

Therefore, and having reached this point, we conclude that the injunction is to be granted, nevertheless, and as far as the requested measures are concerned, it has to be taken into account that those requested under d), e), f) and, partially, under b) are directed against an undetermined universe of addressees, and can therefore only be granted concerning the Defendants.

As for the compulsory pecuniary sanction, taking into account the financial capacity of the Defendants that are companies (to which the requested injunctions of apprehension of books and DVDs are destined), the profits that have already been obtained through the sale and the divulgation at hand, and taking into account the interests that are in conflict, we see it as adequate under article 829-A of the Civil Code.


DECISION

Under these terms and due to the exposed fundaments, the Court grants the present injunction and, as a consequence, decrees as follows:

a) The prohibition for the Defendants to sell the books and the videos that are still in stores or in other deposits or warehouses, and the obligation for the Defendants to collect them and to deliver them to the depositary that is nominated below;

b) The prohibition for the Defendants to perform new editions of the book or the video, or of other books and/or videos, that defend the same thesis, and that are destined to be sold or published by any means whatsoever in Portugal;

c) The prohibition for the Defendants to cede the editing rights or the authorship rights over the contents of the book or the video, or of other books and other videos about the same theme, for publication anywhere in the world;

d) The prohibition for the Defendants to cite, analyse or comment, verbally or in writing, on parts of the book or the video that defend the thesis of death of the third Applicant or of concealment of her body by the first two Applicants;

e) The prohibition for the Defendants to perform the reproduction or comment, opinion or interview, where said thesis is defended or from where it can be inferred;

f) The prohibition for the Defendants to publish statements, photographs, or any other documentation that is allegedly connected to said book and video or said thesis.

Moreover, the Court condemns each one of the Defendant societies to pay a compulsory pecuniary sanction in the amount of 1000 euros for each day that the prohibitions or the order to apprehend the books and the videos are not respected.

The depository of the books and videos, whose collection is ordered, is the lawyer who represents the Applicants.


Expenses by the Applicants to be attended in the main action.


To be registered and notified.


Lisboa, DS



(The Judge of Law, Amélia Puna Loupo)





-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

[1] This reference to an Appeals Court decision is due to the fact that the first request for an injunction that was filed by the McCann couple and their children, was not granted. An appeal was filed, and the present injunction was granted after intervention by the Appeals Court.

[2] The first Defendant is Gonçalo Amaral.

[3] The three other Defendants are Guerra & Paz, Valentim de Carvalho Filmes and TVI.

[4] The two first Applicants are Kate and Gerry McCann.

[5] The third Applicant is Madeleine McCann.

[6] The Applicants’ witnesses are mentioned here.

[7] The forth and fifth Applicants are Sean and Amelie McCann.

[8] The Brazilian edition does not exist, as was later clarified during a hearing on the 13th of January 2010.

[9] Rádio Televisão Portuguesa

[10] «Maddie The Truth of the Lie – A powerful documentary based on best seller “The Truth of the Lie” by Gonçalo Amaral»

[11] Portuguese Republic’s Constitution


Note: The document was made available by Carter Ruck, the McCanns lawyers, as an attachment to a letter that was sent to several sites and blogs who have published excerpts of Gonçalo Amaral book 'Maddie, The Truth of the Lie', in an attempt to close or threat them with a lawsuit. Our copy was downloaded from wikileaks.



138 comments:

  1. I wonder if I will get the strengh to read that above.
    I suffer of high blood pressure ( I mean that) and irritations would not do any good to me.
    I will read the comments.

    ReplyDelete
  2. What are articles 13 and 58 - not proved??

    ReplyDelete
  3. Bravo judge Amelia Puna Loupo!working against your own country, aint you?Pulping books,are we? and especially pulping basic democratic rights of a courageous man and of a little girl who lost her voice because the people who call themselves "her parents" were not around whatever and whenever happened to her....well done!
    I hope you have read GA"s book and more than anything the FILES and recovered some common sense to take the proper course of action = outrule gagging imposed by a pair of psychopaths "roastbeefs"

    ReplyDelete
  4. '...the good name of the family that they belong to'

    LOL! They have a 'good name'!!!!! LOL!

    'a) The rights of Madeleine (the third Applicant) to her moral and physical integrity and to a fair and adequate investigation into her disappearance, in the future;'

    How could they have succeeded with this, as clearly this right is not being delivered by the McCanns farcical 'search'.

    And how come they could have her as an applicant when she is a ward of the UK courts?

    ReplyDelete
  5. Anonymous #3, as we have no access to the text of the request that was made by the Applicants, we have no possibility to find out what articles 13 and 58 were about.

    ReplyDelete
  6. Thank you so very much for this huge piece of work. I wonder WHO will deliver to Madeleine the "fair and adequate investigation into her disappearance" - the McCann's series of fraudsters, erm, private investigators?! Come on, Judge: this is your GOLDEN OPPORTUNITY to ensure that Maddie's disappearance is properly investigated! Reopen the process as a consequence of this very ruling!!! WHat the heck is Portuguese justice waiting for? ~x(

    ReplyDelete
  7. So that glam judge is basically saying that the pair of gits have the right to defend their precious image and she agreed to this by ruling a temporary injunction but for ME having the right to a "good image" will ALWAYS come at the end of my list of VALUES and what I value the most is FREEDOM OF EXPRESSION

    ReplyDelete
  8. I wonder who the four witnesses were for the McCanns.

    I guess it says it all really - this injunction was obtained in secret, not a word about it in the press, and the witnesses remain nameless.

    Goncalo Amaral, on the other hand, appealed against the decision in open court for the world to see. His witnesses spoke openly. They did not hide behind the veil of anonymity, and their testimonies were heard by all who wished to hear them .

    In my experience it is those who speak and act openly who are most likely to be telling the truth. Whilst those of speak and act from the shadows, skulking, secretive, and sly, are most likely to be lying.

    ReplyDelete
  9. Many thanks for translating and bringing this to a wider audience. Obrigada!

    Well, unlike anon 1, I have ploughed through it and the overall impression I get is that the judge deemed the rights of the defendants and the rights of the applicants to be equal but that a decision had to be made and the judgement came down on the side of the McCanns.

    Let's hope this appeal judge redresses the balance and considers that freedom of speech is a more important principle to defend than the already shot-to-bits (by themselves and their foul lies!) reputations of the two main applicants!

    The nonsense about the book and film hindering "The Search For Madeleine" ~x( is just that - nonsense!.

    ReplyDelete
  10. 1)the link for the interview by Le Parisien :

    http://videos.leparisien.fr/video/iLyROoafM8Ad.html

    2)"obstacles to the ontgoing private investigations" The juge should first make some enquiries about the serious of the private investigation,knowing that the parents refused to re-ask for an officiel police investigation, and knowing that private investigation are paid by the "defendants"K/G/ McCann and that such detectives are under the power of their boss and therefore not objective.

    3)"The contrary hypothesis that is defended by the Applicants, that the third Applicant is still alive, must be taken into account, and IF IT IS VERIFIED, then her life and her wellbeing MAY depend on the search for her whereabouts"

    According to this words, it as not be verified that Madeleine is alive= so it can't be taken as an argument to forbidd the book. More : even if it was verified, her life MAY depend the search. May= it's not sure.

    Logical conclusion : the search of Madeleine is not endangered by the book.

    Frencheuropean

    ReplyDelete
  11. :)]I am dumfounded! Otelo Saraiva de Carvalho...Hello? Hello? Hello? Where the hell are you?

    ReplyDelete
  12. Has anyone been aware of any evidence of stone unturning activities in the 5 months since the temporary injunction was granted?

    ReplyDelete
  13. To Jo #8

    The judge, Amélia Puna Loupo, who granted the injunction is not the same one who presided over the hearings last month. The judge who heard Gonçalo Amaral's witnesses and who will the final witnesses next week is Maria Gabriela Cunha Rodrigues.

    ReplyDelete
  14. Is it usual or lawful to grant injunctions, even if temporary, WITHOUT BOTH parts being heard?

    Was it legal to include Madeleine as an applicant since she is a WOC ( if she remains so )? Did the parents get any legal document from Justice Hogg that allowed her inclusion? This we also do not know, but I bet they did not have permission from the court, that's why "Uncle John" left her out when he mentioned the "successful" injunction in the fund's accounts.
    Furthermore, once someone is made a WOC, I believe the family/parents waves away all legal powers on that person. Are exceptions made here and there to allow that in certain procedures the family/parents regain temporary rights again?

    ReplyDelete
  15. Anonymous #15, under Portuguese law, it is indeed possible to grant an injunction without the Defendant(s) being heard. This often happens, for example, with injunctions that have the purpose of preventing the destruction of an asset/property.

    ReplyDelete
  16. In summary this is all about McCann's rights and not about McCann's duties: protecting their children, i.e. not leaving them unsupervised.

    They had a terrible scene on May 3rd 2007 afternoon but was a private accident: it's none of our business or police business. Except our taxes money spent in this non-abduction happening story teller and a couple living from fraud donations instead of waking up early in morning and go both to work earning money in a proper way as decent citizens do!

    You won't go to jail - I agree. But your new and amoral way of living will kill you in the end.

    ReplyDelete
  17. Thank you so much for translating this!

    It's not often you get to read the words 'mccanns' and 'moral integrity' in the same sentence!

    Judy

    ReplyDelete
  18. Oh I see astro, nothing new there than.
    Madeleine liked to an asset/property. It would be funny if it wasn't for real.

    ReplyDelete
  19. poster 5, I agree totally with all you say ,where were Maddies rights to be protected by this "good family" and who classes them as a "good family"? not me ,thats for sure ...Joanna/astro do you think things are looking good for Amaral in the hearing ? I started to think they would be ,then I lost a bit of faith

    ReplyDelete
  20. So when are we going to see a permanent injunction imposed on the McCanns to stop them soliciting money from the public at large on the basis of a fairy story?

    That is the only injunction that should be granted.

    ReplyDelete
  21. Very good points made above about the non-objectivity of the 'search' - the McCanns not demanding a proper investigation and the McCanns themselves constantly pushing themselves into the public arena (this 'privacy' claim is nonsense, they are clearly seeking to avoid any investigation into their own activities and clearly want to control publicity and control the direction of any investigation).

    If the court finds in their favour, then the judge is not astute - and should consider changing her career!

    ReplyDelete
  22. So here we have confirmation that Maddie is indeed an applicant in the process. Why then did Uncle John $-) McCann miss her out of his "chairman's" fund statement? Without her being missing there would be no fund after all. Tut tut Uncle $-) John [-X

    ReplyDelete
  23. Como é que estes pais podem dizer que a sua privacidade e a dos seus filhos assim como o seu direito ao bom nome e reputação são postos em causa pelo livro e documentário em questão se a vida dessas mesmas crianças são expostas em tudo o que é media britânico?O natal dos gémeos, os anos dos gémeos,etc, são constantemente descritos nos media com a autorização dos pais!Só até à bem pouco tempo é que as fotografias dos gémeos deixaram de aparecer nos jornais e não eram fotografias de papparazzi, eram cedidas directa ou indirectamente pelo casal Mccann!
    É verdade que todos temos direito ao bom nome mas quando esse bom nome, quando a nossa reputação, são postos em causa ou mesmo destruídos pelas nossas próprias acções que direito temos nós de atirar as culpas a terceiros ? O que quer que tenha acontecido a Madeleine Mccann (infelizmente tudo aponta para que tenha acontecido o pior)é culpa de quem tinha a obrigação de zelar pela segurança e bem estar dessa criança e falhou escandalosamente, ou seja, os pais desta!O sofrimento actual ou futuro dos irmãos da menina desaparecida são uma consequência do(s) crime(s) de Kate e Gerry Mccann e não do Sr Gonçalo Amaral!Foram eles que negligenciaram a filha, não o ex-inspector.E foram eles que se recusaram a colaborar com a investigação!Como podem alegar que o livro e o documentário prejudicam a busca quando eles próprios nada fizeram para encontrar a filha até agora? No dia do alegado desaparecimento nem se dignaram a procurá-la!Porque pedir doações ao público em geral ou às ditas celebridades e contratar "detectives" de curriculo duvidoso que dão entrevistas onde dizem que a criança está numa cela ou cave algures no Algarve ou que as pessoas A ou B são de interesse para a "investigação" não são prova de nenhuma busca!
    E como é que o facto de o Sr Gonçalo Amaral ganhar dinheiro e estatus social aumenta o sofrimento do casal e filhos ? Não percebo o raciocínio por detrás deste argumento...Serão os Mccann os únicos a poderem ganhar dinheiro com o misterioso desaparecimento de Madeleine Mccann ? Sim, porque não podem negar que têm um fundo milionário à sua disposição, que vivem numa luxuosa casa (paga em parte com o dinheiro desse fundo), que dormem nos melhores hotéis e que se tornaram verdadeiras celebridades a nível mundial às custas da perda da filha!
    Acho chocante a actuação desta juíza!Como foi possível tomar esta decisão sem ter dado ao outro lado a possibilidade de contestarem a acção? É certo que estão a fazê-lo agora, mas a que preço? Com que prejuízos?

    ReplyDelete
  24. This investigation must be reopened , the McCanns and their mates haven't proved that Madeleine was abducted , there is no evidence of an . "abduter" , therefore the McCanns should be put on trial . Nothing else will save their reputations if they can't prove that Madeleine is still , " out there waiting to be found ." There is no evidence to suggest that she is still alive , there is circumstantial evidence that proves that she dead .

    In actual fact the McCanns are guilty (in the first instance) of neglect, that neglect has lead to Madeleine's disappearance . This point now seems to have been over looked by the judicial system .

    The judge should order that Sr.Amarals book should not be banned permanently , until the McCanns prove otherwise and especially for the sake of our human right to Freedom of Expression which is now in danger of becoming eroded .

    Please excuse spelling errors .

    ReplyDelete
  25. Thanks for the translation Astro, predictably the Judge kept to a tight remit, looking at the respective human rights, she cannot look at the criminal case and cannot declare the McCanns even criminal suspects given the archiving in Portugal so she just has to afford them the same rights as anyone else.

    ReplyDelete
  26. Are articles 13 & 58 anything to do with David(nipple rubbing)Payne, he must be a part in this injunction, he is mentioned in the book, and this is the reason i believe they want the book banned.

    ReplyDelete
  27. zodiac says....


    I wonder who the witnesses were? With all this CEOP support of abduction (with imo no evidence to support it) I cannot help but wonder if someone from there was a witness.

    ReplyDelete
  28. Thanks for the translation.

    My concern is the concept that Madeleine has a right over Mr Amaral. There is no evidence that Madeleine is alive. A dead person has no rights. Mr Amaral is alive, there is evidence of this, therefore surely his right must prevail?

    ReplyDelete
  29. The book 'Maddie de waarheid achter de leugen' (The truth of the lie) became a bestseller thanks to the Mccanns. I would never had bought this book if I wasn't so astonished at their behaviour and the way they were talking (and not searching) about the 'abduction' of a human being, I couldn't (and can not) believe my eyes and ears. GA put down the facts and by this he confirmed there is no need for the majority to doubt of their common sense. So thanks to GA, Joana and all of you for the information and posts.
    Hope this is a bit clear, English is not my native language as you have noticed.

    M. Netherlands

    ReplyDelete
  30. Is there any possibility that the court will order PJ to reopen the investication because of the child and also the parents?

    That'd be the best solution for all. For mr. Amaral and the McCanns.

    ;) Susanna

    ReplyDelete
  31. "the good name of the family that they belong to".
    Fraude cheating on people?
    lying?
    irresponsible about their children?
    hiding corpse?
    still friends with the Paynes?
    not breaking David Payne's face in 1000 pieces, after his obscene gestes towards their 2,5 years old daughter?

    If this family has a good name, I wonder how the rest of the UK is.

    ReplyDelete
  32. @ post #31, and most importantly, FOR MADDIE!

    ReplyDelete
  33. The McCanns' "moral integrity"! What a laugh!

    They reproach Gonçalo Amaral for earning money from his book and video. Isn't that what most writers do when they're published. Even Tolstoy got money his books.

    Pia

    ReplyDelete
  34. Astro, my hat off for such a tremendous job!!!

    Textusa

    ReplyDelete
  35. I think that in Portugal, they have taken the investigation as far as they can, these suspects are in UK and that is where the investigation continues.

    But in fairness to the McCanns it has always been made plain, if you bring us new and credible evidence we will re-open the process for you. Hence the hapless Kate and Gerry continue to scour the details of any paedophile who happened to have been in Portugal at the time and pin the blame on him - Hewlett. I am quite certain that anything that emanates from the lips of Kate, Gerry and their equally hapless investigators it simply not going to be considered new and credible evidence that Madeleine was abducted by a stranger. The PJ know that is just not true!

    Kate and Gerry had the opportunity to keep the Portuguese investigation open to prove their "innocence" the fact they failed to avail themselves of that opportunity and a free and comprehensive search for Maddie backed by all the resources of the police just speaks for itself! I will not even bother to go on about refusing to anwer the questions and their friends resolute refusal to attend the reconstruction, but again, if they were innocent that if of course what they would have done.

    ReplyDelete
  36. Astro - Thank you. The mind boggles at the work involved in the translation of this article.

    I must admit to only skimming through it, but I took in the most relevant bits. The McScams, surprise, surprise, have the upper hand, while the Defendants, the first of whom is Goncalo Amaral, must put up and shut up!

    Will their luck ever run out. One can only hope!

    ReplyDelete
  37. "the first Defendant defends the thesis of death of the third Applicant and the concealment of her cadaver by the first and second Applicants" sounds surrealistic !
    A sues B for pretending C concealed A's body. Only in Court...

    ReplyDelete
  38. Speaking about searching for Madeleine, she appears to have sent birthday presents to the twins.
    Why don't the McCanns look at the back part of the pack and read the address of the sender?
    She must be at that address.

    ReplyDelete
  39. Does someone know how many years before a person who has disappeared is declared dead ? 3 years ?

    ReplyDelete
  40. Anon 31 - I have often wondered that myself, but I`m not sure that the Judge has the power to do that. But I don`t see how she can come to a right decision without the case being re-opened.

    On the one hand she can see that the police department didn`t believe the McCann`s abduction story, so she must be questioning the McCann`s guilt, yet on the other hand they have not been charged with any crime and legally must be considered innocent and if they are innocent, they have the right to protest against the book. She cannot make a right decision unless she knows whether the McCann`s are guilty or not. It would make my day if she said that no decision can be made until the case is re-opened.
    Louise

    ReplyDelete
  41. Can't some British here investigate at the Family Court whether Mrs Justice H. allowed her WOC to sue GA ?

    ReplyDelete
  42. How the McCann's can continue to claim an abduction and use the claim to ask for money escapes me. Surely its misrepresentation to claim abduction as if it is a fact, when there is no evidence of an abduction having taken place?

    ReplyDelete
  43. @ Anonymous 21
    In fact they should be forced to raise money specifying "for Madeleine who's still missing and might be alive".

    ReplyDelete
  44. @ Anonymous 17
    Don't you see they're very busy doing their duty concerning M ? Who would look for her if her parents didn't insist she's alive ? Why do you think they're suing GA ? To get the money to pay people looking for M ?

    ReplyDelete
  45. Aren't articles 13 and 58 described in Civil law book ?

    ReplyDelete
  46. Annon 33 Pia

    Maybe the McCanns are pissed off because Oops! they did not get the chance to write the first book on the subject, as it were !!

    ReplyDelete
  47. The McCanns don't want the case reopened, or they would have requested it.

    Obviously for them it would NOT be the best solution. It must be the last thing they want or it would have been reopened by now.

    ReplyDelete
  48. Good point Jailhouselawyer at 29.

    The McCanns should have to PROVE there was an abduction and a living child before an injunction is even considered.

    The official investigators concluded the death of Madeleine.

    The McCanns can't prove an abduction and should be told to go away until they can.

    On the strength of the McCanns say so and bully boy tactics, people are being silenced right, left, and centre.

    Here's hoping they will be stopped very soon.

    ReplyDelete
  49. I just hope the judge exercises common sense. I'm not really sure where the actual law lies. But if I were her, I'd look to their fund, false sightings, useless detectives, fund raising and millionaire backing for supposedly an eternity and the never-ending adulation in the British press. Also there's the ever-helpful CEOP who invited Gerry to speak at their conference.

    I'd then question how Dr. Amaral is impeding the search for Maddie through one book when the McCanns obviously have all the backing at their disposal in their search for Maddie.

    As for moral integrity - the less said.

    SB

    ReplyDelete
  50. Lawyer Mr. Cabrita could ask the McCanns if there is a part in the book that was not yet known by the media and by the public.
    99% was known but, oh god!, that 1% left was a suprise for us all.
    And Gerry must consider himself very lucky that Amaral did not compleetely publish that famous statement.
    Amaral said that by now he knows much more than he knew when he wrote the book.
    I hope Mrs. Martin had a lot more to tell.
    She seems to have been dismissed from her job.If the McCanns were the reason why she was fired(I hope not)it will be cool.
    In this life we have to be careful when we choose our enemies.
    Not everybody is suitable to be one, specially when they know too much about us.

    Gerry, it is high time to flush yourself through the wc.

    ReplyDelete
  51. Letter from Iberia
    The banning of the book by a Portuguese Judge in a Portuguese court has brought about a major change in the McCann versus Amaral case.
    Looking back on this disgusting set of events.
    A group of UK swingers Holiday in Portugal
    Each night they all together to a swinging boozy diner all leaving their children unattended and in danger
    On one such a swinging boozy diner due to The McCann’s negligence a child goes missing.
    The Portuguese police are eventually informed.
    The Portuguese police follow procedure etc
    The McCann’s start an internet appeal for money
    The McCann disinformation machine provided via the office of the Prime Minster in the UK point the finger of suspicion at other individuals
    The Portuguese police continue to investigate all leads including all the McCann’s disinformation.
    An innocent man is made a suspect after the McCann disinformation system diverts the blame from them selves
    The individual by good policing is eliminated and cleared but his reputation and life generally being destroyed
    Dogs and specialists are invited from the UK by the Portuguese Police
    The Portuguese Police under the leadership of Mr Amaral work diligently and eliminate all but the McCann’s as suspects
    The Portuguese police interview Mrs McCann as a suspect.
    She refuses to answer questions
    The McCann’s put pressure on their contacts in the UK government
    The UK government puts pressure on the Portuguese Government at the signing of an EU treaty
    Mr Amaral is removed from the investigation in such a manner that he is forced to resign his job and as such has no means of supporting his family
    The McCann’s are released by the Portuguese police on instructions from “above” without any charges and without any mention of endangering their children
    The McCann’s are given a VIP police escort to the airport and removed from Portuguese legal jurisdiction
    The McCann’s tell the world that the Portuguese police in particular and the Portuguese peaople in general sare stupid etc
    And so on and so on
    The McCann’s sue everyone and anyone they can and start to amass a huge amount of money to fund whatever they want to spend it on.
    Mr Amaral Writes and has his book published
    The book is a success
    The McCann’s can smell the money
    The McCann’s apply to the Portuguese courts to ban the book and claim millions of Euros in damages
    A Portuguese Judge rules that there is no free speech in Portugal and allows temporary ban on the book.
    So now the whole focus of the Case is not McCann Versus Amaral but rather McCann’s Versus the Portuguese justice system.
    The same system that let the parents of Madeleine McCann who failed in their duty of care to their child in leaving her alone and in danger and due to that negligence she is missing and probably dead.
    This whole fiasco has brought shame upon the Portuguese justice system, a system that is trying to ruin an honourable and hardworking ex-policeman who is only guilty of writing a book to enable him to feed his family.
    A system that is rewarding two individuals that are responsible for what has happened to their daughter, two individuals who have never said sorry or admitted any contrition and are so happy to make more and more money from their daughters suffering.

    Only Portugal can bring Justice
    Only Portugal can right these wrongs
    We all wait and watch

    ReplyDelete
  52. aacg 39
    www.diyspy.co.uk/WhenIsAMissingPersonPresumedDead.html
    "Normally in the UK a missing person may be declared legally dead no less than seven years after disappearing without explanation, unless other convincing evidence of the person’s death can be shown."
    "In England and Wales, the Family Division of the High Court holds proceedings for the presumption of death in the absence of a death certificate or other acceptable affidavit. The court may be persuaded that a missing person’s death occurred, if it can be shown the person was “exposed to a specific peril of death” and the person’s absence remains otherwise unexplained"

    Both of which seem to fit the circumstances of the present case perfectly.
    The problem is that there would then have to be an inquest. Not a trial at which people can be protected by lawyers, but an inquiry into the circumstances.
    very dangerous for the McCs, though in another 4 years, Justice Hogg may have to do something like that to get rid of the Wardship.
    Can we wait that long ?
    I think we can.

    ReplyDelete
  53. 39. I always thought it was 7 years, but with that canue chap it was less. Must depend on circumstances.

    I want to know how private detectives can go & work in Portugal.I thought it was illegal.

    Also, if Madeleine is still a WOC, shouldn`t Justice Hogg be the one out there with a begging bowl?
    If this is so, how are K & G allowed to obtain money supposedly on Madeleine`s behalf?
    At times like this I wish I had studied law.

    ReplyDelete
  54. Is a missing child subject to the same 7 year law though? I thought that was for adults, as they usually have some sort of estate which cannot be left in limbo forever ,and may have dependants/spouses who need to have them declared dead for legal reasons (again, money, estate, life insurance, spouses wanting to re-marry etc) With a child they do not have all these legal aspects to deal with, so are they not just considered missing until they are found, one way or aanother? We may have to wait longer for an inquest if that is the case.

    ReplyDelete
  55. House Of Commons Library

    Missing persons and the presumption of death

    In general a person may be presumed to be dead if it can be proved that:

    •there is no acceptable evidence that the missing person has been alive at some time during a continuous period of seven years or more

    •that there are others likely to have heard of the missing person, had (s)he been alive, who have not in fact heard of the missing person during that period and

    •that all due inquiries have been made with a view to locating the missing person, without success.

    http://www.parliament.uk/commons/lib/research/briefings/snha-04890.pdf

    ReplyDelete
  56. Anon 54,
    Which Law would you have to study to make sense out of this nonsense?

    THE LISBON TREATY which Gordon Brown and the Lib/Lab/Con leadership allowed to be signed without ANY reference to the British people, takes priority over the laws of member states.

    The outcome of this Hearing, where the negligent (BRITISH) McCanns are trying to steal a book and obtain money by deception in LISBON from a Portuguese citizen, will give a taste of things to come when the European Union Super State is fully integrated.

    An Englishman

    ReplyDelete
  57. If the Family Court made Madeleine a Ward of Court, the question is why, and when. Could the parents have wanted the child adopted? If the Court is in Loco Parentis, I cannot see how the parents can now claim they are involved in protecting her welfare with this libel case, as they have already given away that responsibility to the Family Court, or was it taken from them?

    ReplyDelete
  58. I believe John Hirst has applied for a death certificate, see

    http://hypocriteandliar.wordpress.com/2010/01/18/see-you-in-court-mr-and-mrs-mccann/

    QUOTE - The correct legal position, in my view, is that Madeleine can be declared dead and a death certificate issued. Therefore, I am applying for this. There are two ways the authorities can respond, simply issue the death certificate and be done with it, or order an inquest with a coroner and jury. Obviously, I would prefer the latter.- END QUOTE

    Louise

    ReplyDelete
  59. People of Portugal what gives you the right
    To doubt the McCann version of what happened on that night
    Gerry has spoken, abduction is the choice
    Who is this Amaral to raise a dissenting voice?

    The McCanns are British and will tell you what to read
    Using the Portuguese courts to cover up their greed
    They are telling the court, its causing them distress
    But really they are desperate to keep it from the British press

    Then they allege severe mental strain
    But in reality they need to cover up Payne
    You are not allowed to think for yourself
    The McCanns have ordered the book cleared from the shelf

    What about looking for Madeleine, we can hear the cry
    Its much more important destroying the "Truth of the Lie".......

    ReplyDelete
  60. All this is about grabbing money from Dr Amaral. They can't stop people thinking and people clearly already think that Madeleine is dead.

    Most think she died as a result of the McCann's neglect - they (the McCann's) must think that too...maybe they'd sleep better at night if they admitted it!

    Having said that, I doubt anything stops Gerald from sleeping...

    ReplyDelete
  61. RIPM No.60
    Spot on with that poem Mate, spot on!!!

    ReplyDelete
  62. IMO ,The reason Gerry and Kate always have the sly smirk on their faces is they know people in high places are backing them ,I also think it is not beyond them both to threaten these people with "If we go down we will take you with us"I cannot think of any other reason why they have not ,in the least been charged with child neglect

    ReplyDelete
  63. Anon.#54, I had never thought of that! You're right, if Madeleine is a WOC, her parents should not be gathering money from the public in her name, and if they did, all the money should be directed to the judge and court, as they are now the legal guardians of the child. I too have no deep knowledge of the law, but that's what would make sense to me. How can it be that parents who transferred their legal rights over their child to a judge/court, are still able to take decisions and actions involving their child, using her name, in this case the collecting of money into a fund that is not even a proper charity, and use that money, which the world was told was to be used on behalf of their daughter, to pay for their mortgage, legal fees, travels, etc.???

    And why was Madeleine made a WOC? Was it to insure that in the event of her body ( or a live Madeleine, but very unlikely) ever being found it would be off-limits for the portuguese police? That it would immediately fall under the british jurisdiction, even if she was found in portuguese soil, and that any investigation, post-mortem, etc., would have to be made in England? Would the portuguese police/legal system have to hand her over to England, not being allowed to question her, if found alive, or to analyse her remains?...

    ReplyDelete
  64. Anon 14 (Jo 8)

    Correcto.
    Two different judges....my mistake although knowing they are 2 different judges.Sorry about this.
    It shows how much rushing is NOT good.In any case,I hope Maria G.Cuhna Rodrigues will correct and put democratic and constitutional rights before a the right to a "good image".
    Today,I am hopeful this will happen.I dont know how I will feel "mañana".....

    ReplyDelete
  65. Judgment Madeleine McCann Ward of Court http://www.scribd.com/doc/25027454/Judgement-Madeleine-McCann-Ward-of-Court

    ReplyDelete
  66. Are the British press waiting for the outcome of the Amaral case? If McCanns win - status quo. If Amaral wins - the floodgates of truth begin to open.

    ReplyDelete
  67. Somewhere Kate said that she and Gerry are being treated by psychologists.
    In order to be totally helped, the McCanns ought to tell the truth to this psycholgist.
    I wonder if they did it.
    And I wonder if the psychologist is vomiting this couple, after he found out about what happened to Madeleine, what Tapas 9 did to Murat and Malinka, what the McCanns did to the media, how they cheated on good people and who Payne is.

    ReplyDelete
  68. Somehow, I have the feeling Madeleine is not buried yet.
    I have the feeling she is still in a freezer, somewhere.

    ReplyDelete
  69. John again,

    makes you think about the up and coming film 'Anyone's guess!'

    Starring:

    Ricky Gervais as Gerry McCann
    Katie Price as Katie McCann
    David Jason as Goncalo Ammaral
    A range of child actresses playing Madeliene - day she was 'abducted', various sightings, age progression and eventually, Emma Watson as the 'returning Madeleine' - who has been very well looked after by Portugues peasants and treated like a fairy princess.

    Hollywood will definately go for this fairy tale - thing is - do they have to wait until Madeleine comes back or can they get on with it now and just have a few alternative endings which are changed on each yearly anniversary?

    By the way - I am half way through my book on the subject, titled 'what really happened'

    It is a combo piece taking all of the best bits from Gerry and Kate and intertwining the odd bit that fits from the case files. The result will read a little like a harry potter book (I have not actually read one - but I can guess how far fetched they must be).

    enough clap trap,

    ReplyDelete
  70. I am not as optomistic as Post 67. Sadly, I do not think Amaral will win the case. The fact is that Socrates and other Portugese politicians are also involved in this cover-up. It is therefore essential that Amaral is discredited and destroyed at all costs. Let's face it,this "temporary"injunction should not have been granted in the first place. Even if by some miracle he were to win, I don't think the British press will change. They will either go into over-drive smearing Amaral and the book even more or ignore its publication all together. You have to feel a little sorry this week for John Terry. I'm sure he expected the British gutter press to treat him like a paragon as they have treated the McCanns as paragons.

    ReplyDelete
  71. Anon @ 67

    And I keep asking - who will fund the defence of the McCanns when there is a line of agrieved people wanting to sue them.
    Where is the money going to come from when libel awards are made against them?
    Of course the press wil try to spin it as heartless people trying to benefit from thier grief but they have brought it all on to them selves.
    Cound we see that detached family residence in a desirable East Midlands village up for sale?

    Mr B

    ReplyDelete
  72. As someone who has had some experience of wardship proceedings, albeit some time ago, I have previously made the same points about WOC status as other posters here. I think pressure for the case to be re-opened should be applied to the court holding the wardship and that some of the McCann's actions would have required permission. The question is -were they granted leave for their actions?

    ReplyDelete
  73. Kevin Halligen Whooshclunked?
    What is happening about his extradition proceedings to the USA?
    Are the McCann trustees going to take action against him; to demonstrate due diligence over fund administration?
    Why did he allegedly have to flee his UK address because of his "arrangement" with the McCanns?

    ReplyDelete
  74. Sad to say that I'd be totally gobsmacked if the McCanns dont win in Portugal - and if they dont win the injunction, they will win the libel which will have the same effect...there are issues deeper than we know - political not legal.

    If they dont win, it will be for them a catastrophe! But even then, the next thing will be - like the case of the English football thug - claims that Portugal is a third rate country - in financial difficulties within the EU and judgments are thus of no consequence.

    It just keeps falling into the McCann's greedy and abusive hands doesnt it!

    ReplyDelete
  75. Anonymous # 67,

    Maybe. But if Amaral wins i'm afraid the tune won't change. Next day's papers' headlines will be: "Disgraced cop wins court case. Justice in Portugal is a joke." Want to bet?

    Anyway, as you said, the floodgates of truth begin to open, and nothing can stop the flood now.

    Again, an extraordinary job, Astro! Thanks a million!

    ReplyDelete
  76. Thanks, Jo, for the ward of court judgement. It does not explain why she was made a ward of court - it just states it in a most abrupt manner.

    This was basically a rejection of a request from the McCann's, couched in terms which made it appear to be sympathetic - they were simply refused access to information which the Chief Constable held which had not originally been supplied by the McCanns themselves.

    Incidentally, are you ever going to reply to my mails (did they, in fact, reach you?).

    ReplyDelete
  77. @ post #67, you would think so wouldn't you? Personally, I think the status quo will be maintained regardless of the outcome. The Express, Star and maybe Mail may stick the knife in a bit but I don't expect anything major. I hope I'm wrong.

    ReplyDelete
  78. hi, when does the Amaral case in Lisbon start up again? Next week?

    ReplyDelete
  79. "Article 59: Proved that curricular pieces concerning the first Defendant [2] are published on the internet, referring to him as an honest, structured, socially accepted man, namely for the performance of political posts;"

    I guess it would have been okay to post Mr. Amaral's thesis on the internet as long as the people doing it did not refer to him as an honest, structured, socially accepted man. The McCanns have "shaped the stories" to depict Mr. Amaral as a man of many vices, a man who is professionally inept, a man who is not respected in his own country, yet in this injunction they are trying to argue that Mr. Amaral's opinions are respected and are therefore detrimental to an ongoing investigation. It appears this couple can have it both ways.

    "Also proved that the first Defendant wished to intervene in local political life."

    I assume this refers to Mr. Amaral's attempt to run for mayor, to me this is irrelevant.

    The person whose image has suffered the most is the first defendant. The first two applicants are the ones who have earned financial, commercial and social profit by disseminating lies worldwide, they are the ones who have deepened the suffering of the first defendant and rendered the search for the third applicant more difficult. I should say the first two applicants have effectively brought the search for the third applicant to a halt.

    The court appears to believe that the archival of a case is equivalent to declaring the innocence of all involved.

    After reading this the more I am convinced that there were back door dealings to make this injunction possible. Let's hope that the current judge is impartial, perhaps the McCanns thought that this would be settled out of court and that it wouldn't have gone this far.


    Oh where oh where can Halligen be oh where oh where did he go? la la la la la

    ReplyDelete
  80. #75 I too will be gobsmacked if there is a judgement against the injunction - however here in Britain today ones faith that justice does come around was upheld. Three MP's and a member of the House of Lords have been charged with fraud - that like the McCann case was never, ever to reach a court of Law! Sadly someone at the DPP had not read the script. So no matter how far fetched we may feel the idea of the McCanns being brought to court may be - it's still a possibility!

    ReplyDelete
  81. :)] Anon 24

    Bem pensado... mas de resto não estou em crer que a ideia do Dr. Amaral tenha sido a de "ganhar dinheiro e status social". Terá sido sim, a de corrigir uma imagem profissional denegrida pela imprensa Britânica e pelos próprios Mc's. Feito isto, e natural que deva ser pago pelo seu trabalho. Qual seria a alternativa? Arrumar carros na Praia da Luz enquanto estagia para exercer a advocacia? O fundo de desemprego? O subsídio de família? O Fundo Madeleine? :D Ah!ah!ah!

    A criação do Fundo de Defesa Gonçalo Amaral foi uma boa ideia, o problema e saber se os Portugueses acordarão a tempo. De momento estamos todos de braços cruzados a espera do lançamento do "Fado do Amaral" (um "mash-up" com a voz da Amália).

    E bom não esquecer que ele se demitiu em protesto de ter sido removido do caso. Escrever um livro foi a via que ele encontrou (como ex-coordenador da investigação, e cidadão Português) de expor a teoria de abdução dos Mc's como falácia provável. Os Mc's se não fossem tão arrogantes deveriam ter feito o mesmo mas... a extorsão pareceu-lhes bem menos suor...

    O senso comum informa-nos ser o Dr. Amaral quem se encontra na melhor posição para processar os Mc's (por difamação) mas tem um problemazinho: O Dr. Amaral não e Britânico e a Justiça em curso e "à la Portugaise". Leia-se: submissa ao governo de a Sua Majestade Britânica. Continuamos afinal, o mesmo velho domínio virtual da Inglaterra. O próprio Camões com um só olho teria visto o estratagema todo num só pestanejar...

    :(( Otelo Saraiva de Carvalho a presidência!

    ReplyDelete
  82. :)] Anon 24

    ... Um "mash up" ("puré de batata") com a voz da Amalia, as líricas do RIPM e as vocais dos "Eddie & Keela" - caninos investigadores profissionais e karoequeiros amadores. ;)

    ReplyDelete
  83. @ post '82, I share your optimism. It may take some time but I believe the McCanns and their hangers-on will face justice one day!

    ReplyDelete
  84. Just found this it may be relevant!

    "First they ignore you, then they ridicule you, then they fight you, then you win." -
    -- Mahatma Gandhi

    ReplyDelete
  85. @ post #86, Amen to that! I'm hopeful that Amaral comes out victorious in overturning the book ban. It would only be the common sense decision after all.

    ReplyDelete
  86. Principle aim of Madeleine Fund is to find Madeleine 'who was abducted...'

    So the very reason they give for the fund's existence is based on an unproven premise - undeniably unproven. Surely to make such an assertion makes the fund a misrepresentation?

    ReplyDelete
  87. ShuBob,

    I agree - they have to maintain their fraud forever and forever is a long time!

    ReplyDelete
  88. Anon at 88

    Absolutely right. They are stating abduction as a fact, when it is not.

    Yet they are being allowed to get away with this while ever they can silence anybody who contradicts them.

    ReplyDelete
  89. Re the court acting as loco parentis - I don't think McCanns would have any problem getting whatever they wanted from the rollover judiciary - the terms of the original "obey the McCanns" order was absolutely stunning. Every official agency in the UK - police, home office, whoever - required to co-operate fully with them, even when they were formally suspected of illegal disposal of a cadaver!

    The ward of court business remains a mystery. No proper explanation was given and for about a year the McCanns presented themselves as parents with full parental powers to the public while the fund donations were flooding in.

    If the wardship was simply to facilitate her being tracked down internationally, why was it not explained?

    ReplyDelete
  90. Mrs Justice Hogg stated in relation to the WoC, that Madeleine is assumed to be alive, there being "no evidence" to the contrary. But since then, Portuguese evidence files have been published and the Public Prosecutor has conlcuded that it is more likely that she is dead. Presumably this puts a different complexion on things and the assumption of that Family Court.

    ReplyDelete
  91. @ PeterMac (53)

    Thank you so very much !
    "exposed to a specific peril of death"
    Isn't a left alone little child under peril of opportunistic abduction or death ?
    An adult may disappear and we know that quite a few people disappear by their own will. As adults they're supposed to be able to take care of themselves. But a little child ?
    Cases of babies abandoned for some reason and turned into wild children exist, I'm not sure that it's possible with a 4 yrs old one.

    ReplyDelete
  92. @ Anonymous 54 who wrote
    "Also, if Madeleine is still a WOC, shouldn`t Justice Hogg be the one out there with a begging bowl?
    If this is so, how are K & G allowed to obtain money supposedly on Madeleine`s behalf?"

    True. If they obtain the million euros, will M's part be kept apart under Hogg's wing ?
    I wish sometimes I had studied basics of law too.

    ReplyDelete
  93. @ Anonymous 92
    The public prosecutor changed his mind last January : he said the chances were fifty/fifty, taking advantage of the rather badly but intelligible written statement that, imo, should be analysed by some expert in linguistics.

    ReplyDelete
  94. post one.......i didnt suffer from high blood pressure but i do mow........please let the mccs be shown to what they are....cowpat money seeking scum

    ReplyDelete
  95. The most sarcastic byte of them all must be this:
    "Expenses by the Applicants to be attended in the main action".

    The accessible legalese of the text merely illustrates the subservience of the Portuguese Republic to the govern of Her Majesty. "Waiter! Bring me the anti-nausea. I am about to vomit."

    Now, let us wait and see what happens next. I still have faith that these court proceedings are merely "para Ingles ver". I very much doubt Portuguese judges will be that gullible. I would burn my passport and ask the UN for refugee status...

    ReplyDelete
  96. I'm sure the British government has issued a 'D Notice'. This would explain GM's air of invincibility. He has powerful forces behind him. Jose de Freitas refused to attend as a witness. He let slip that this was because of 'National Security Reasons'. This shows high level government involvement. I wish Goncalo well. However, the road to justice will involve first defeating the pernicious forces protecting the McCanns. Regards Angelo Del Montello.

    ReplyDelete
  97. The McCanns are protected under Mr Brown umbrella (I cannot understand why) but it is supposed to end soon. The election is coming and there is very little chance that Mr Brown will stay to rule the country and to support negligent parents who is suspected in their daughter dissapearence.

    Hopefully, after that The McCanns will be brought to justice.

    ReplyDelete
  98. Post 74. Yes indeed, didn't the McCanns pay Halligen more than £300k before terminating his contract, due to his failures. How did he receive so much money before they realised he was unsatisfactory? What happened to the money and what have they done to get it back for the sake of Madeleine and all those people who donated? Why did CM say they weren't duped? What made them so sure he was worth them investing such a vast sum?

    ReplyDelete
  99. To Astro, another great translation for us all, thank you!

    Depositions of witnnesses 1-4,"essentially characterised by the transmission of their opinions,deductions,and personal convictions".
    I have an opinion,Madeleine is dead. I have a deduction, her parents are responsible. I have a conviction,the P.J.and Snr.Amaral got it absolutely right! Together with the dogs they showed us what had happened in the apartment on May 3rd.2007.

    I notice that in the Court Documents, there is no mention of an "Abduction" but a couple of mentions of a "Disappearance", is this an example of the Court being "Even handed" I wonder, or could it be more significant than that ?

    ReplyDelete
  100. Joana Morais said... 81

    10 February


    Roll on Hun, that may be something more akin to Justice!

    and I wonder if the Spaniards have also been subjecting a few of their esteemed "investigators" to a bit of a de-briefing they may not enjoy :))

    ReplyDelete
  101. "Disappearance" is just being legally accurate, (as you would expect from a Judge) the PJ did not prove that either the McCanns or Goncalo's claims were correct. Therefore Madeleine is legally a missing person and it is correct to refer to disappearance the circumstances of that happening not having been established, yet.

    It is not correct to refer to her as dead or abducted! But your opinion is OK. Abducted by a stranger is the McCanns' opinion or so they would have us believe,:-o but the Judge is not accepting that, she is making that plain, she is not accepting either are right, she is accepting the findings of the AG after he had reviewed the investigation. Not even possible to say whether she is dead or alive.

    ReplyDelete
  102. The McCanns give us an update when they are erm how can I put it nicely, wearing their matching brown trousers:

    Day 481: 26/08/2008 Tuesday No Update







    Oakley International

    Date Released: 26/08/2008

    In the light of articles in some UK Sunday newspapers this weekend, we feel it is appropriate to comment briefly
    on our relationship with the investigation company Oakley International.

    We appointed them several months ago to investigate the disappearance of Madeleine McCann.
    We continue to work with them to this end. The working relationship is managed by Brian Kennedy,
    who also confirms the relationship with Oakley International continues to be good and that it remains
    entirely focused on the search for Madeleine.

    ReplyDelete
  103. When one has no solid argument nor evidence against someone else's opinion, the risk is an ad hominem attack.
    The British media having done more than half of the work without any opposition, without fearing nothing, the Ms's task has been very much facilitated.

    ReplyDelete
  104. "Of the Law" - para3. says "...On the other hand, it resulted demonstrated that the dissemination of those materials (book and DVD) deepens the suffering of the two first Applicants and renders the search for the third Applicant more difficult (cfr. answer to article 92): each time the first Defendant’s thesis is newly divulged,"

    But this is not "the defendant's thesis", it is that of the PJ investigation.

    "...mainly due to the repercussions that such events have on the search for the whereabouts of the third Applicant and due to potentiating the knowledge of said thesis by the fourth and the fifth Applicants.

    If these repurcussions exist then it is because of the rightful published investigation evidence in the PJ files. But there is no independent proof they exist, as the Applicant maintain they continue to have had hundreds and hundreds of responses to their appeals for information which their PIs have been sifting through. Quod erat demonatrandum.

    ReplyDelete
  105. Post 100,
    I don't think that the Fund got its money back. CM suggests that after some time and having got sufficient information for the money they spent, they just didn't renew the contract with H.
    Now What did they get exactly for that money ? This is something we never know, unfortunately. How do the Ms figure out that people will go on giving just on their word that all stones are unturned ? At the beginning, all right, but after a while only fools don't need some piece of result.

    ReplyDelete
  106. Astro, Joana !
    Sometimes I feel guilty for not thanking you enough for the splendid job your doing !

    ReplyDelete
  107. you're doing, sorry ! Just saw it when it went off !

    ReplyDelete
  108. I'm very much afraid that GA will win the injunction (because of the Strasbourg threatening) with some conditions like selling his book with a band making clear that this is only his opinion, but will loose the libel (precisely to avoid "In Portugal Justice is a joke").

    ReplyDelete
  109. CONVICTIONS


    Decision to file the case Madeleine:
    (signed by two Prosecutors)

    "It was not achieved any evidence that allows an average man,
    according to the criteria of logic, and the normality and rules of experience,
    make any conclusion lucid, sensible, serious and honest
    about the circumstances which saw the removal of the child
    the apartment, nor spell, even,
    a prediction consistent "

    The low content of evidence allegedly exists in
    process is inconsistent in any
    CRIMINAL SYSTEM CIVILIZED ...

    Nor was evidence that Maddie was in the apartment ...
    There are no certainties, only CONVICTIONS
    according to the culture of every thinking:


    CONVICTION atheist that is buried in the Church

    CONVICTION child that fell from the window and died

    CONVICTION clinic that she was drugged and died

    CONVICTION dog that was dead and buried

    CONVICTION statistics where Maddie was abducted

    CONVICTION legal that the withdrawal of the site of the Vatican
    is a matter of international law

    CONVICTION legal ignorant that abandoned children …

    CONVICTION “trauliteira” that there was abuse because the child cried

    CONVICTION pseudo-scientific evidence that the DNA is of Maddie

    CONVICTION stupid that the dog barked saying that the smell was of Maddie

    CONVICTION judicial who never tells the truth

    CONVICTION religious belief (primary) is dead, peace to your soul ...

    CONVICTION religious belief (with theism) pray in the hope of being alive ...

    CONVICTION civilized
    reflecting a deep respect for
    constitutional principle of presumption of innocence
    and the principle of "in dubio pro reo,"

    THAT THE McCANNS ARE INNOCENT

    ReplyDelete
  110. They are opening a big box of stinky trash in England right now.
    Fraud, darlings, fraud and does this sound familiar?
    The Labour party people, who else?
    Oh, I hope something will be found about Brown.
    A terrible thing.

    ReplyDelete
  111. If there is any justice the McCanns will lose on both counts.

    They have had things far too easy right from the start.

    They seem to know they are in a 'no lose situation' because there will be too many red faces in both countries from those who have ridiculed Goncalo's version of events and have done all in their power to make sure he is seen as the wholly guilty party.

    ReplyDelete
  112. Just a thought this morning. We spoke yesterday about Madeleine being a ward of court, and therefore her share of any damages should be held in trust by the courts. Would it be correct then to assume that the share apportioned to the twins for their distress etc. will be held for them in trust also. This would mean in my mind that should the McCanns win their expected £1,000,000 the only money that they can legally append to the fund would be their share some £400,000 as the other damages are made to the other applicants.

    ReplyDelete
  113. @ Scotfree

    Interesting point you raise.

    I've been giving this some thought, and a couple of things occur to me. I know the defamation law differs somewhat in Portugal, by comparison with England and Wales, but surely those bringing the action must be able to show damage to reputation etc.

    The injunction was sought on grounds other than simply defamation, and made claims such as the supposed harm to the search etc - but how on earth is the book supposed to be defamatory of either Madeleine or the twins ?

    I have wondered if the reason why the action was launched in joint names, including Madeleine's, was to try to provide a justification for paying the legal costs from the fund. I cannot see how that would continue in an action for defamation. The only reputations which can be claimed to be damaged are those of Kate and Gerry McCann. It might be within the law to pay those costs from the fund monies, but surely it's against purpose of the fund as described in it's articles.

    ReplyDelete
  114. if anyone can remember the last few days of richard nixon when he secluded himself having to cut out parts of tapes that he wanted to hide...i can well imagine and hope gordon brown will be doing the same exercise with letters and documents soon cutting out ones that he doesnt want shown

    ReplyDelete
  115. Good point Scotfree. If the action is taken in the names of the children, any money should be held in trust for them. Hopefully, the Judge will rule against the McCann's claim, so it shouldn't arise. I think ID is clutching at straws in many of her assertions. She didn't seem to have a handle on the full facts: re: her reference to the Smith's sighting and their suggestion they saw GM carrying a child.To harp on about when Mr Amaral presented his information is a matter between him and his former employers and is side issue.

    ReplyDelete
  116. If i read that correctly it says costs will be linked to the main case, does that mean the injunction overall or the libel trial. As for the fund, since the McTw*ts became board members it now includes paying legal fees. How reading a book will stop the search is beyond me, they have never searched themselves and pay dodgy PIs to search - or do they? They never sued Danny Collins or the other people who wrote books, these didnt conclude Maddie was alive. Maybe the judge will suggest the case is reopened so that a proper legal search may continue, i know this is a civil case and not a criminal one, but can a judge recommend it be re-opened - does anyone know? and yes i do think the children were included as a legitimate way of paying the fees they will incur. Now should this case go against them looks like their house will soon be on the market!
    Liz

    ReplyDelete
  117. the main action is the libel trial, regarding your question I don't know if that is possible legally, even if the judge wishes to do so.

    ReplyDelete
  118. The grounds for the injunction are breach of the rights (below), and note Kate and Gerry have been very clever here, they have put the three children first. If they had sought to rely solely upon breach of their own rights they may well have been on much shakier ground. It would be interesting to know who the (at least) five witnesses are, but in relation to the first four the judge is saying they just gave an opinion on the impact every time these divulgations were made. Therefore it seems likely they are close relatives and possibly including others close to them such as Clarence Mitchell maybe? The fifth witness sounds more like a technical witness, medical, legal or investigator - Edgar?. I wonder if they originally tried to get an injunction just on the papers and this got refused so the appeal court allowed the appeal subject to them producing live evidence? That is just a guess I cannot clearly see what has gone on and of course, this is Portuguese law and procedure. I do wonder whether Kate and Gerry plan to win the injunction and then walk away now because the claim to damages seems weak to me on the basis of the evidence from the other side the court is now hearing and ahead of any trial, Goncalo has got some of that in against them by doing his appeal. It is a good litigation tactic to hit the other side hard with what is to come it puts pressure on them to give up. It does seem from reading it that it has been a long time for the McCanns trying to get this injunction with maybe procedures not being properly followed. Maybe certain witnesses did not really want to go and give live evidence?

    The second action is going to be the hard one for Kate and Gerry because that is where they are saying they want damages for injury to their reputation and I think it is clear they did that all by themselves. Yes, Goncalo has added to that but ? The claims for the children are more in the way of upholding their human rights and I do not see that awards of damages are appropriate. It seems to me it is actually Kate and Gerry who want the damages due to actual alleged damage to their reputations and that is surely going to be difficult for them. Mr Menezes said they could have faced charges for kidnapping and trafficking. Even if Goncalo has not got the correct offence, the damage to reputation surely has to be of their own making.

    These rights, as characterised below, are far more to do with human rights than the law of defamation although in the case of Kate and Gerry, it is a mixture of the two. Many of the rights referred directly mirror the European Convention on Human Rights (which applies to both Portugal and UK as they are both signatories) but also it would seem rights that are specific in Portuguese law.


    a) The rights of Madeleine (the third Applicant) to her moral and physical integrity and to a fair and adequate investigation into her disappearance, in the future;

    b) The rights of Sean and Amelie (the fourth and fifth Applicants) to their moral and physical integrity and to a fair and adequate investigation into the disappearance of their elder sister, in the future, as well as their right to the reservation of private and family life and to the good name of the family that they belong to, their right to freedom and to security;

    c) The rights of Kate and Gerald McCann (the first and second Applicants) to their image, to their good name, to their good reputation and to the preservation of the integrity of their private and family life, their right to freedom and security, the right to their moral integrity, the right not to be treated in a degrading, cruel or inhumane way, the right to enjoy, like any other citizen, the guarantees of the penal proces

    ReplyDelete
  119. Before any injunction, Kate and Gerry have to prove that Madeleine is alive and victim of an abduction. This is not proved. Then the injunction is based on a supposition, not a fact. Since the book is based on facts which came out of an official investigation, the court is playing a dangerous game:- How can a supposition contest facts?

    And wonder to know if the third applicant (Madeleine) on her full faculties and rights will agree with that injunction.
    The all case is odd, showing another dark position of the judicial power in Portugal. I have no doubts: Just changing some of the characters of that charade will lead this injunction case in to a drawer with a stamp "ridiculous".
    OK, Kate and Gerry have been, I don't agree with the word defamed, because to be defamed we need to be absolutely sure that the abduction happen and they were not involved. The investigation show us how improvable this situation was. Lets use a more appropriate word, insulted. treated in an impolite way some times. But who is at the beginning of that insults?- Themselves, their behaviour, their reactions in the Media, their words, their excuses, their ridiculous explanations for every single step in the investigation, their camuflate insult at the Portuguese police just because they find very inconvenient evidences. It was not Amaral fault and not caused by the book. In fact they start been insulted many months, if not a year, before the book.
    On the other hand we have to compare, to be fair. From nothing, Amaral was insulted in the British Media which crossed the world, without making any appearance at the TVs. From day to night, Amaral which was not known from any public, had his name and his picture on the front page of newspapers with accusations of being fat, drunk, wearing expensive clothes, etc. etc. This is a serious defamation, not only an insult because he did not do anything to develop such reaction from the Media. it was a direct manipulation of the media, done by the Mccann's or by somebody on their behalf. The same happen with Murat, Malinka and the German lady. But with Amaral, the situation went far into a very disgusting taste and we never heard a position from the Mccann's or their spoke-person's to refute or condemn the behaviour of some British Media. If you don't take this in a very serious account, judge Gabriela, then you are not independent and you are deliberately playing Mccann's game and not helping Madeleine to achieve justice. Too dangerous for Portugal and too dangerous for all the child's which are, at that moment at risk, behind the hands of people which have by law the right to protect them, but they neglect them or cause their physical and mental harm, instead.
    Judge Gabriela, you cannot isolate that case. For the good and for the bad, Madeleine case is an example, and to be honest and correct you have to demand the court to re-open the case and impose a reconstruction of the night Madeleine disappeared with a note that "nobody can refuse on any grounds to participate on that reconstruction".
    LETS SEE AT THE END WHO DEFAMED WHO, with independence and justice.

    ReplyDelete
  120. "a) The rights of Madeleine (the third Applicant) to her moral and physical integrity and to a fair and adequate investigation into her disappearance, in the future;"

    A ridiculous Joke since who put her at risk since the beginning, were her parents by showing her eye defect and making world appeals against the adviser of the police. Again her parents fault on top of being neglecting her during the full holidays. They have to blame themselves about the tragedy Madeleine went trough.

    "b) The rights of Sean and Amelie (the fourth and fifth Applicants) to their moral and physical integrity and to a fair and adequate investigation into the disappearance of their elder sister, in the future, as well as their right to the reservation of private and family life and to the good name of the family that they belong to, their right to freedom and to security;"

    Another joke. What Kate and Gerry are doing when they announce to the wold that they are raising the twins making them believe that their sister was snatched from the bed at night by a boggy man which leave no trace? What a nightmare for their immature brains.
    And how health were their minds, believing that their sister can walk trough the door the next day, this is why they give her birthday and christmas presents, year after year. I,m sure, nothing can damage more the mental heath of a child then grow-up in the middle of such ill parents. AGAIN THEY THINK ONLY ON THEMSELVES, THEIR CHILDS ARE NOTHING ELSE THEN DECORATIONS TO BE USED AS OBJECTS ON THEIR CONVENIENCIES. Sick!!!

    "c) The rights of Kate and Gerald McCann (the first and second Applicants) to their image, to their good name, to their good reputation and to the preservation of the integrity of their private and family life, their right to freedom and security, the right to their moral integrity, the right not to be treated in a degrading, cruel or inhumane way, the right to enjoy, like any other citizen, the guarantees of the penal process."


    AH! AH! The best joke of ever. Who to blame? Who decide to went trough a Media Circus campaign? THEM.... THEM...ONLY!!!!!

    ReplyDelete
  121. And Mr and Mrs. Mccann... What about the Millions of Portuguese and Caucasian people which have been INSULTED, DEFAMED, ACCUSED of being Paedophiles, potential abductors, evils, child's munchers,etc, BECAUSE OF YOU, BECAUSE OF YOUR NEGLIGENCE. AND HAVE ABSOLUTELY NOTHING TO DO WITH THAT CASE OR ANY CASE RELATED WITH THE ISSUES THAT YOU ARE TRYING TO STICK AT THEM.

    Many nations, had to point fingers at you and accuse you of disgracing the name of Portugal, Spain, Morocco,etc, if we want to be honest and fair.

    ReplyDelete
  122. Anon 122 and 123 Bravo beautifully put !
    Liz

    ReplyDelete
  123. Anon 122 and 123 I'm speachless. Wonderful statement.

    ReplyDelete
  124. It seems so odd speaking about upholding Madeleine, Sean and Amelie's human rights in a court of law. The parents violated their children's right to protection every evening of the holiday for hours on end. We keep coming back to the problem of half-hourly checks (dubious that they happened in the way Tapas 9 describe) being formally accepted as goodenough parenting when you only have to look at the outcome (Madeleine gone)to conclude that it isn't. How can the rest of the world now protect Madeleine even if a court of law decrees that we should uphold her human rights?

    ReplyDelete
  125. 122 and 123 - brilliant summing up - I only hope and pray that the Portuguese judge appreciates even a percentage of what you say because that would be enough to get some justice for Sr Amaral.

    As a UK national, I wish to apologise to all those abroad who have been insulted and had their reputations injured by my fellow countrymen.

    ReplyDelete
  126. Is it just me, or are these the most wishy-washy flimsy of grounds to impose an injunction ever? (Not including any injunction ever granted to Jeffrey Archer)

    Madeleine was surely entitled to an expectation that her parents would safeguard her physical integrity - perhaps someone should be suing the McCanns.

    As to a fair and adequate investigation into her disappearance, isn't that what she was having, up until the minute it stalled because of the failure of witnesses to agree to attend a reconstruction, and the mother's refusal to answer any further questions ?

    It's all hogwash

    ReplyDelete
  127. Anon 121 - well said - yes, the basis of the McCann`s injunction is based on supposition. And I agree that the McCanns have done excessive harm to Goncalo Amaral and the Portuguese people after they gave up their time to look for the supposed lost child and have spent millions of their tax payers money on this case. I do hope Judge Gabriella comes to the right decision.
    Louise

    ReplyDelete
  128. I think social services should , at the very least, be concerned for the mental welfare of the twins.........but apparently not.

    ReplyDelete
  129. Whilst a fictional character I think Sir Arthur Conan Doyale’s Sherlock Homes would have cracked the the case of the missing three year old girl…

    “By the method of exclusion, I have arrived at this result, for no other hypothesis would meet the facts.”

    “It is an old maxim of mine that when you have excluded the impossible, whatever remains, however improbable, must be the truth.”


    Mr B

    ReplyDelete
  130. Mr B @131

    My thoughts exactly

    ReplyDelete
  131. It is a fundamental legal principle in English Law at least, that in effect, if an official process concludes publicly that a child is more likely to be dead, and this is in the public domaine, then repeating this is NOT a defamation. This can be backed by judicial precedent. If the PT judge cannot uphold this legal principle in Portugal, then I'm sure a court of Human Rights will.

    ReplyDelete
  132. Surely Kate McCann's diary account of how she found it hard to cope with the children should have social services involved.

    Was this known about before they even went on that holiday?

    ReplyDelete
  133. Social Services were involved, did an "assessment" (1 prearranged visit) and found everything to be fine and dandy.

    ReplyDelete
  134. Kates mother reported that Kate hadnt slept well in the early days, as Maddie had come to her. Now i read that as Maddies ghost, i cant see any other way to read that. I hope all this kind of info is brought out at trial, coz thats her own mother saying M is dead.
    Liz

    ReplyDelete
  135. To Liz,post 136. Regarding the comments of Kate McCann's mother,it has already been stated that on a number of occasions Kate's parents looked after the children,travelling to Rothley from Liverpool by car.This was at times that Gerry McCann was away at work. The mention by Kate's mother of "Maddie coming to her" may be referring to the childs stay with her Grandparents in Liverpool. If you are correct and the visit mentioned is supposedly a "Ghostly visitation", that would make a mockery of this whole circus! I think Kate would try to have her mother committed to an institution for the mentally deranged.

    ReplyDelete
  136. I hope the police do have more information on Gerry and Kate than we feel they have they should have tapped their phone lines and had them followed, even now surely sophisticated equipment could do just that, pick up on their conversations with each other. For example when he came back to England and pretended his wallet had been stolen that excuse gave him extra time to do something that was important to him, he stated he was late for meetings because he had to cancel his credit cards a poor excuse, but what else was going on at the time that he had to come back to the UK and Kate actually met him at the airport in Portugal when he got back so it must have been urgent. Then recently he left the court hearing and flew back to England due to 'work commitments' leaving Kate but then quickly Jane Tanner was with Kate to keep an eye on her and stop her saying too much as Kate looks as if she is on the verge of cracking up with all this guilt she's carrying around so who did Gerry meet up with in UK clearly he was afraid court case not going his way and needed to speak to someone, why was he not followed and checked. There is so much cover up going on with this that it makes one wonder what is really being covered up and why are these people being protected. Ultimately the truth will out it always does then every newspaper will have it as a 'world exclusive'so why do they not speak up now, who pays the papers to keep quiet. Why do people like Branston and JK Rowling get involved in this, surely they should distance themselves from this situation. The facts are all out there it is only a matter of time. A terrible injustice has been done to Amaral by these people, but the truth will out. Keep up the good work Joana.

    ReplyDelete