McCanns accuse Amaral of violating the judicial secrecy

[Guest]

McCanns accuse Amaral of violating the judicial secrecy
14 January 2010 | Posted by Joana Morais Leave a Comment

The McCann couple will file a criminal action against Gonçalo Amaral for allegedly violating the judicial secrecy when he published facts concerning the investigation, in his book “Maddie – The Truth of the Lie”.

According to Lusa Agency, the British couple’s lawyer, Isabel Duarte, stated that the action will be filed after a certificate from the trial of the book’s prohibition is extracted, which is expected to happen as soon as next week.

The accusation of violation of judicial secrecy is based on the date when the former inspector’s book was ready, which happened three days after the Republic’s prosecutor wrote the process’ archiving dispatch.

Isabel Duarte defends that “Gonçalo Amaral diffused the process to Guerra & Paz [the book’s editor] when the process was still under judicial secrecy. He diffused facts and he was not authorised to do so”.

The lawyer recalled that the video that was broadcast on TVI is evidence of that infraction, because it was an important piece within the investigation and stated that she is going to file a criminal complaint against the former inspector herself, over “false statements” to the court. According to Isabel Duarte, this accusation is based on statements by Gonçalo Amaral that he has “no real estate [nor any] participation in a firm”, when in reality such is not true.

The former inspector is thus being accused over false statements, of violating the judicial secrecy, and of defamation by the McCann couple and by their lawyer.


source: Correio da Manhã, 14.01.2010

http://joana-morais.blogspot.com/2010/01/mccanns-accuse-amaral-of-violating.html?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+JoanaMorais+%28Joana+Morais%29

[Guest]

She's clutching at straws.

GA might as well plead guilty, get a smack on the wrist and a 50 euro fine and get on with the business of putting these scum behind bars

[Guest]

Right, so now we are going down the road that the book was published too early? FFS!!!!! They really are clutching at straws now!

ETA, snap!!!!

[Guest]

Vexticious Litigants, springs to mind !!!

[Guest]

Vexticious Litigants, springs to mind !!!

Yeah, first he's fiddled his Legal Aid and now he's published his book three days too early. That is really damning stuff, he should be burnt at the stake for that.

That is just sooooooo sad if it's the best that the Bag Lady can come up with. Hare's right. If I were Gerry I wouldn't pay her bill neither.

[deborah]

anonymous said... 13

Hold on a minute ... isn't this a direct contradiction by Isobel Duarte? The current trial is essentially about the book being 'libellous' (ie untruths) - now Ms Duarte is claiming that the FACTS were released to the publisher whilst the case was still under official secrecy.

Get it right Ms Duarte - either the book is untrue or the facts (truth) were released too early... you can't have it both ways.


GOOD POINT ?

[AnnaEsse]

anonymous said... 13

Hold on a minute ... isn't this a direct contradiction by Isobel Duarte? The current trial is essentially about the book being 'libellous' (ie untruths) - now Ms Duarte is claiming that the FACTS were released to the publisher whilst the case was still under official secrecy.

Get it right Ms Duarte - either the book is untrue or the facts (truth) were released too early... you can't have it both ways.


GOOD POINT ?

A very good point, I reckon, deborah.

[Guest]

Handing confidential details of the police file over to his publishers to be printed etc whilst it was still under secrecy of justice and false statements, sorry but this is serious. But is Duarte so confident of winning the civil action they started if she is resorting to this? I guess she probably is, sorry guys but this is real bad IMO.


Debbie I am afraid she can have it both ways, false statements and handing over confidential details of the police files whilst still subject to secrecy of justice are CRIMINAL OFFENCES. On top of the civil action already commenced for defamation. The legal aid is not mentioned in this article, but that may be fraud, not sure we do not have the details.

[deborah]

Handing confidential details of the police file over to his publishers to be printed etc whilst it was still under secrecy of justice and false statements, sorry but this is serious. But is Duarte so confident of winning the civil action they started if she is resorting to this? I guess she probably is, sorry guys but this is real bad IMO.

Real bad ? not just bad ? must be bad then Viv ? Would you say the McCanns are goping to win hands down on everything ?

[Guest]

I would not like to go that far because a lot of detail has come out about their own serious criminal behaviour and also the fact they appear to have defamed themselves and themselves placed Maddie at risk of serious harm by leaving her alone and advertising her etc against police advice. They complain about documentaries but have done so themselves and clearly courted the press. But I do think Goncalo is now in serious trouble and they will fight with every rusty nail they can find, unfortunately, he tossed quite a few their way!

I think it could be a long expensive and dirty fight!

[deborah]

ok thank you

[Guest]

Whats the current situation regarding judicial secrecy in Porugal ?

Didnt the law change to relax the secrecy requirements a couple of months after the McCanns where declared as arguidos ?

[Guest]

OK Deb, try to help but it is not very good news

[Guest]

Whats the current situation regarding judicial secrecy in Porugal ?

Didnt the law change to relax the secrecy requirements a couple of months after the McCanns where declared as arguidos ?

I think it was the law on making them arguidos that changed and was actually tightened up, if I recall, and please remember I am not qualified in Portuguese law, I do not even speak the lingo! It was changed to the effect that the police had to have really hard evidence, I think, prior to making them arguidos. In short a few months later and they would not have been able to make the McCanns arguidos, purely on the basis of the dogs. It has always been my view really the McCanns should have been kept completely in the dark and obviously us and the press too!

[Guest]

It has always been my view really the McCanns should have been kept completely in the dark and obviously us and the press too!

Thanks for that, I remember something changing. 100% agreed that this should have been sorted out in private through the correct channels. Unfortunately The McCann's and their friends at editorial intelligence had their PR circus in operation by the lunchtime the next day.

[Guest]

That is a lot to do with it Hare, they were going overboard to get this in the press, but I think someone else was too, those three all deserve to be in court really


What we need to hold onto is that Rebelo and Brit cops investigated the McCanns for another several months and that lot is where it should be, well and truly under wraps, neither the McCanns or Goncalo will be getting their mitts on it.

Justice may have been impeded but remember what Brit Police just said and believe it!!


JUSTICE FOR MADDIE HAS NOTHING TO DO WITH THEIR SORDID FIGHT!

[chirpy]

I don't understand how the McCanns/Duarte could file a criminal action against Mr Amaral themselves. Surely a criminal case would have to be investigated by the police and any necessary charges brought by a prosecutor?

If Portuguese law allows that criminal charges can be brought by private individuals and their lawyers, then maybe it's time Mr Amaral filed a criminal charge against the McCanns for child neglect and abandonment.

[Guest]

I don't understand how the McCanns/Duarte could file a criminal action against Mr Amaral themselves. Surely a criminal case would have to be investigated by the police and any necessary charges brought by a prosecutor?

If Portuguese law allows that criminal charges can be brought by private individuals and their lawyers, then maybe it's time Mr Amaral filed a criminal charge against the McCanns for child neglect and abandonment.

If someone burgled your house, do you wait for the police to start investigating it, or do you make a complaint to the police so they can start investigating it? I would imagine that is what Ms Duarte has in mind, reporting a complaint to the police as people do the world over!

[oliver]

in chirpys support viv, i think they way it is worded could be misleading.

[Dimsie]

Just what has this nonsense about when the book was printed got to do with the McCanns' supposed aim of searching for Madeleine? This will help to find her - how?

One thing's for sure - this pair will never again be able to accuse anyone else of being engaged in a witch-hunt against them, when we can now see who's doing the witch-hunting. The word hypocritical springs to mind. They should remember that the British public - though not the British media - still have a deep-seated belief in fair play and a strong dislike of bullying and anyone throwing their weight about.

[chirpy]

If someone burgled your house, do you wait for the police to start investigating it, or do you make a complaint to the police so they can start investigating it? I would imagine that is what Ms Duarte has in mind, reporting a complaint to the police as people do the world over!

Of course you'd report it to the police. And you would also do it immediately, not 18 months after the event. It's not as though the date of the release of the files and the date of publication of the book is brand new information to the McCanns. The wording of the article indicates that the McCanns are the ones filing criminal charges as opposed to just reporting the matter to the police for further investigation. Which is why I asked the original question. I guess they can report Mr Amaral all they want. It will be for the police to decide if there is a case to be investigated. Either against Mr Amaral, or against them for wasting police time.

in chirpys support viv, i think they way it is worded could be misleading.

Thanks, Oliver! I think things do get lost in translation!

[Faithlilly]

Haven't the McCanns informed their lawyer of their friends Jane Tanners interview in the Panorama programme where she publicly aired the information contained in her police statement on national television and thus flouting judicial secrecy long before Senhor Amaral had even put pen to paper. My goodness those McCanns really do have short memories !!

[Colonel Fabien]

The book was launched 3 days after the case was shelved, so I do not see how this complaint could hold up in court. This is pure desperation. She already tried to make a complaint that he made false declarations about his assets and it was thrown out by the judge, as being unfounded.

If things had gone well for the McCanns during these last 3 days, the lawyer would not have to resort to these drastic attempts to get at Gonçalo Amaral. It has been 18 months since the book came out and no charges were brought against GA for breaking judicial secrecy by the Ministério Público, so I doubt this will be getting anywhere. Furthermore, the Portuguese newspapers published most of the information used in his book well before the secrecy was lifted and the book came out. No one has complained about that.

[Guest]

The book was launched 3 days after the case was shelved, so I do not see how this complaint could hold up in court. This is pure desperation. She already tried to make a complaint that he made false declarations about his assets and it was thrown out by the judge, as being unfounded.

If things had gone well for the McCanns during these last 3 days, the lawyer would not have to resort to these drastic attempts to get at Gonçalo Amaral. It has been 18 months since the book came out and no charges were brought against GA for breaking judicial secrecy by the Ministério Público, so I doubt this will be getting anywhere. Furthermore, the Portuguese newspapers published most of the information used in his book well before the secrecy was lifted and the book came out. No one has complained about that.

Apparently the crucial date - is the date of notification of the McCanns, which was 28th July (4 days after the publishers had possession of the finished book). From what I've read (no legal expert)

[FSoares]

This is just my opinion, but I'm not imagining Amaral in prison for six months, for violation of the secrecy. I think the worst case scenario is a fine for 60 days. I also think Isabel Duarte is on a personal battle against Amaral, beyond the McCann case. I can almost bet she's following Marinho Pinto, the Bar Association's Head, who has a personal vendetta against Amaral. Time will tell.

[Sponsored content]