The Cross Word Puzzle by Dr Martin Roberts

By Dr Martin Roberts
02 October 2013 [updated 16:30]


THE CROSS WORD PUZZLE

'McCanns devastated by shameful lies of disgraced ex-cop', or words to that effect (word order hardly matters), is the kind of rabid headline that has continuously attended the McCanns' attempts to suppress Goncalo Amaral's 'Truth of The Lie'. Well, 'those who live in glass houses...' and all that. When all's said and done, lies are no less shameful when told in English under the title 'Madeleine'. But let's not get into a puerile 'tit-for-tat' argument. Let's instead envisage a brief exchange which, for all the world, might just have occurred in the summer of 2008:

'Hi Gerry. Michael here. Do you want me to e-mail you a translation of what Goncalo Amaral has to say in print?'

'Nah. Don't bother mate. We've read it.'

'Oh' (scratches head in bewilderment).

'Michael', as we know, is convinced that his friends the McCanns were historically 'enabled' through his linguistic intervention some time during August that year. He has said as much in a Lisbon court recently:

'They read the book when I sent them the translation that was on the internet in August 2008.'

For their part the McCanns each claimed in September, i.e., the following month, that they had, in fact, not read the book, whereas reports carried in the UK press on July 25, well before Michael Wright thought to take the initiative, cited both the McCanns and their poodle (sorry, spokesperson) as claiming that their 'legal team' had already begun scrutinising Goncalo Amaral's book, that extracts from the book published online had already been translated (without specifying by whom exactly) and that the legal team had also begun translating the work (which rather suggests that the 'extracts' referred to had not been translated by them in the first instance). Furthermore, the legal team would 'take their time' going through the text.

Peering through this fog it can be said without fear of contradiction that lawyers are not also linguists by profession. So, unless a Portuguese ally was on hand, 'The Truth of the Lie' would have to have been scrupulously translated in its entirety for the tame UK 'silks', first to scrutinize it, and then to form any reliable opinion as to its legal character. What can be read in a day can surely be translated in a month. Thus Michael Wright's diligence on the McCanns' behalf would have been a day late and a dollar short. By the end of August they should already have been armed with their legal team's 'first impressions', hence the imaginary exchange portrayed earlier. But we have just begun to sharpen the pencil.

Whereas Michael Wright's unambiguous claim before the Lisbon court might appear to offer scope for re-interpretation, that is, I'm afraid, a false hope. To recap:

'They read the book when I sent them the translation that was on the internet in August 2008.'

In its fullest sense the statement equates to:

'They read the book when I sent them the translation (of it) that was on the internet in August 2008.'

Predictably, however, there are those of a perverse persuasion who wish to read into it:

'They read the book when I sent them the translation (of an excerpt, a summary, or of something else entirely) that was on the internet in August 2008.'

Implying that the McCanns were goaded into action by their unexpected acquaintance with whatever it was Wright believes he sent them. But we already know that the McCanns may either have anticipated Wright's communique, courtesy of their own legal team, or else did not follow his lead, according to their published statements; all of which relegates Wright's claim to the logical status of 'piggy in the middle'. For one reason or another, what he says happened, did not. In any event there is no way the McCanns could have read a book written in Portuguese on account of a piecemeal introduction to it, in whatever form. They do not speak or read Portuguese, period.

This 'alternative' view of Wright's explanation does not work therefore. Which leaves us with the intuitive interpretation, and that in itself tells us about more than a mere coincidence in timing.

The statement, 'they read the book when I sent them the translation that was on the internet in August 2008' associates the book with the translation. In order to read one from the other both must be complete. There is no suggestion that the McCanns read the book 'in part'. Furthermore, there is only one translation – the translation. And that does not mean one English translation among several, being the one available on the internet versus however many others might have been to hand, whether in English or some other language. It means exactly what we should take it to mean, because, in reality, in August 2008 there were no complete translations of Amaral's book available to the public at all, on the internet or otherwise.

Michael Wright's apparent 'discovery', barely a month after initial publication, would seem to confirm, or to suggest at the very least, that an understanding of the book's legal ramifications would have been arrived at reasonably quickly, even allowing that the McCanns' legal team were deliberately, and quite sensibly, taking their time over it. Notwithstanding the differences of interpretation and adjudication of libel between the UK and Portugal currently, one would have thought the implications of 'The Truth of The Lie', from that particular legal perspective at any rate, would have been assessed and demarcated by the end of 2008. A 15 November statement of Clarence Mitchell's confirms this:

"Lawyers for Kate and Gerry have been aware of what Mr Amaral has been alleging for some time. What he has said and written before now is grossly defamatory of them." (The Independent, 16.11.2008).

From the McCanns' point of view therefore, defamation was determined within three months of publication. Mitchell went on to say:

"If he chooses to publish them in Britain those words will be studied intensely carefully and they will not hesitate to act if they are defamatory."

Before any rush to judgement however, it should be borne in mind that Mitchell was speaking in the context of a future publication predicated upon a translation already in the possession of Dr Amaral's publishers; one that was most definitely not on the internet, but open to discussion, in the sense that the publishers (Guerra & Paz) themselves acknowledged the possibility that the Portuguese and planned English editions might not say exactly the same things. However, the situation as regards the original was cut and dried, and Portugal would be where the McCanns would take action. Except they did not – for a further seven months! Of course libel can be damaging, and its effects immediate, which is why litigants typically lose no time in bringing charges (not even Oscar Wilde, and he was the only one to read the remark that offended him in the first place). Why did the McCanns wait seven months therefore?

There is a school of thought that, with an authorised English version on the cards, a pre-emptive strike was to be preferred. Better to muddy Amaral's waters before the home market got wind of potentially damaging information, than mount a challenge afterwards. Needless to say an English edition could not be challenged before it was even printed – but the Portuguese could. As we have seen, Mitchell's cautionary remarks, made in November 2008, were made in respect of that very possibility – an English edition. And yet nothing happened. In fact Mitchell confirmed that the McCanns' legal team were prepared to sit back and wait, nursing a brief to study Amaral's words 'intensely and carefully' should he choose to publish in Britain. So why the delay?

On November 18, Mario Cena Lopes, representing Guerra & Paz, intimated that The Truth of The Lie would be appearing in Denmark, Sweden, Norway and Germany by the end of the year. In reality it was released in Germany and Holland during April, 2009 and France the following Month, May 3rd. The McCanns' decision to sue the author for defamation was announced within a fortnight, and their formal writ issued on 24 June.

The Sunday Mirror (12.7.2009) ran a major feature on this development which included a synopsis of the injury the McCanns felt had been done to them by Goncalo Amaral's book, expressed in phrases such as 'total destruction', 'irreparable damage'. The McCanns themselves, when prefacing this announcement with one of their own back in May, chose to use the terms 'huge' and 'immense'. So just how long is a piece of string?

It is clear from the evidence presented in court so far by their witnesses against Dr Amaral, that with the sole exception of Trisha Cameron, none of them is able to quantify the alleged damage done to their sponsors, the McCanns, nor the pain they are alleged to have suffered. Trish Cameron spoke today (Wednesday) of her family members' distress having been 'multiplied 100 times' by the publication of Goncalo Amaral's book. (Shouldn't that be 180,000 times, i.e., the number of Portuguese copies sold? Perhaps not). So what was the level of distress beforehand? Maybe that doesn't matter, but, with distress under the microscope, how does Trish Cameron know better than anyone else, better than even Kate and Gerry McCann so far, exactly which level of magnification to adopt? It's all vaguely reminiscent of Michael Caine's closing line in the film, Too Late the Hero (1970):

'Out there? He was a hero. Killed fifteen single-handed. Thirty, if you like.'

The McCanns themselves were no less coy in 2009, but they seemed to have discovered one metric at least for conversion of their hardship – money. Not only did they feel themselves capable of assessing their various emotional ailments according to very precise and extravagant figures, they even had the temerity to suggest where their adversary might look for the cash in order to meet their miserable demands:

£500,000 from the book sales in Portugal (180,000 copies).

£430,000 (from the extra 150,000 books sold in Brazil, France, Germany, Italy, Spain and Holland).

Only the foolhardy would appeal to a correlation as conclusive evidence of a causal relationship, but one cannot help question the true nature of the McCanns' case against Goncalo Amaral. The effect(s) of a genuine libel on a person's good name is immediate, not cumulative (one cannot base a case on hypothetical future developments in any case) and demands an equally immediate response. It cannot be that deep a wound if it takes almost a year for the injured party to seek a cure. If they simply stand back and watch whilst donations continue to drop into the bucket, then the motive for legal action becomes something other than a concern for their personal reputation(s).

Some years ago the McCanns eschewed an opportunity to quell the UK press, via the customary route of the PCC, in favour of taking legal action against various titles. They succeeded in finessing Express Group Newspapers out of half a million. The present confrontation in Lisbon was clearly not triggered by any defamation of which the McCanns' legal team were already convinced prior to November 2008 (according to Clarence Mitchell). Guerra & Paz published in Portugal and nothing happened. Instead it took a spate of releases throughout Europe for the McCanns to feel sufficiently wronged as to do something about it. For a moment it looked as if history would repeat itself. But then Goncalo Amaral and those acting for him proved better bridge players than the McCanns imagined.

eloquent, insightful and bang on the nail. jimo.

Its all very well Trish Cameron describing the family anguish about the book, the effect on them all and the twins, but I thought this court action was because they are claiming the book has hindered the search.

Distressing as a book like this must be to them, I have yet to hear anyone say anything about how exactly it has hindered the search, other than it must be what the Portuguese people believe because that's where it has been read.

How does that follow? Are the Portuguese not able to make up their own minds? I think most Portuguese people had made their minds up, one way or the other, long before Mr Amaral wrote his book. I think it was the PJ investigation and its sudden abandonment without a conclusion that would have made people's minds up.

I havn't read the Book, did watch the video and there is nothing libellous in it because amaral used the existing information from the files and no way was the search for Madeleine hindered by the Book. The McCanns got carried away after winning £600,.000 from the Express and thought they could get away with a million euros from Amaral.If what we have seen so far is anything to go by the Judge should have no problem in reaching her decision.

tanszi wrote:eloquent, insightful and bang on the nail. jimo.

Dr. Roberts succinctly precisely expresses the matter AGAIN.

Great stuff.
Dr Roberts has a mind like a steel trap.

How on earth can it have hindered the search.  Madeleine must be the most searched for child in history if you go by the amount of people that know about the case and the  amount of money spent and the number of sightings and the attention with parents appearances on Oprah, best selling book written by mother.  What other missing child has had this much searching and publicity.

LJC wrote:Its all very well Trish Cameron describing the family anguish about the book, the effect on them all and the twins, but I thought this court action was because they are claiming the book has hindered the search.

Distressing as a book like this must be to them, I have yet to hear anyone say anything about how exactly it has hindered the search, other than it must be what the Portuguese people believe because that's where it has been read.  

How does that follow?  Are the Portuguese not able to make up their own minds?  I think most Portuguese people had made their minds up, one way or the other, long before Mr Amaral wrote his book.  I think it was the PJ investigation and its sudden abandonment without a conclusion that would have made people's minds up.

I agree LJC. Plus, it doesn't matter how anguished they are, if the information is based on true facts, being anguished isn't grounds for winning a defamation claim.

And this so called 'ongoing search' is ridiculous. As far as I remember, the 'search' was called off after about 3 weeks wasn't it? After that, it's about hoping something turns up which reveals the whereabouts of the child and looking at every scrap of evidence to see if any clues or suspects have been overlooked.

I imagine it's difficult, if not impossible to determine whether people were less likely to take seriously a suspected sighting of Madeleine once Mr Amaral's book/documentary had been released. There are other variables, like the couple becoming arguidos, the news of the sniffer dogs' alerts, the news from Martin Brunt that the dna found in the hire car was a 100% match to Madeleine (why aren't they suing him?).... and the passage of time.

I can't see how they can win this case.