McCann guarantee not to asfixiar Gonçalo Amaral financially, CdM, 23.12.09

Amarals answer to the McCanns letter

“I did everything I could to find Maddie, but I made some mistakes.”
The ex-coordinator of the PJ consider that “a policeman is not obliged to obtain results”, but yes to do the best he can. He also states that he is convinced that he will win the case which opposes him against the English couple with regard to the injunction on his book. “Do not underestimate me” he warns.
"O Crime" - How do you answer the observation made by the Mccanns, in their interview in our paper, that none of the PJ inspectors did more than their job, as opposed to you, who accuses people who have been declared innocent by the prosecutor and the judge.
The couple is badly informed. The case has never gotten as far as a judge, it has only gotten to the prosecutor. Afterwards, the prosecutor did not shelve the case definitely but instead shelved it on a temporary basis, leaving it on a “slow boil”, while waiting for better evidence.
However, the final report concludes that it is not possible to attribute any responsibility to the parents in the disappearance of their daughter…
That is also not true. What the prosecutor says in his report is that the non involvement of the parents in any illicit act “seems to result” – he does not say “it results”, he says “seems to result” – from a set of elements on which he formed his opinion. An opinion which is worth what it is for the case but it does not establish an absolute truth which limits public discussion. We are no longer in the Middle Ages.
Do you think that you had the obligation to find Maddie, as the couple states?
A policeman is not obliged to obtain results. He is obliged to do the best he can. That is what I did, me and my Portuguese and British colleagues. With mistakes, I admit. I already made the auto-critique in the book “A Verdade da Mentira”.
If you had not made any mistakes during the investigation, would it have been possible to find the child alive?
We might have been able to find the girl. I cannot say anymore due to the injunction.
The McCanns are convinced that the thesis of the alleged death of the girl is hindering the efforts they are making to find her alive…
The prosecutor of the Ministério Público who shelved the investigation – and who distributed the shelving report to the press of the entire world – wrote that the death of Madeleine is the most “probable” scenario. He hasn’t been sued yet.
The McCanns accuse you of talking about situations related to their families, something that they have not done in relation to yours…
I make statements about a criminal case and not about situations related to their families. And they do not say anything related to my family because they do not need to do so. Maybe there is someone who does it professionally for them and they do not know it. There are a lot of people who forget that I have worked 30 years in criminal investigation. When the right time comes, I will request the appropriate diligences of proof in order to discover the truth and to redress the damages I have suffered.
Is it true that, up until now, you have not lost anything, not even the two Euros which are still in your bank accounts?
Up until now, I have not lost anything and I will not lose anything, you can be sure. What happened was that they froze my earnings with the intention of impeding me from be able to pay the court costs and my lawyers’ fees. Do you have any idea how much a case such as this one costs? It costs a fortune. It costs even more than my Jaguar…
Speaking of the Jaguar, it is said that the Jaguar was purchased with the profits of the book “A Verdade da Mentira”…
But no one says that, before I bought this second hand Jaguar, I already had another much older one.
In your new book “A Verdade da Mentira”, you criticize the judicial decision that ordered the withdrawal of the book “A Verdade da Mentira” from the shops. Would you like to explain?
I say that the decision was illegal, an unjust decision, thus it is a case of censorship. The court, when it did not hear me before taking the decision of decreeing the injunction, decided solely on the basis of the elements presented by the McCanns. The court was not aware of the foundations of the affirmations in my book and, for this reason, took my words as gratuitous offenses and not as a properly based opinion.
Do you believe that after the testimony of the witnesses who you are presenting, the decision will be overturned?
I think so. I presented witnesses and I presented the criminal case files to be analysed by the court. These elements of proof will be, in my opinion, enough for the judge to obtain the clarification she did not have before. I have been in contact with judges for 30 years. Some judges are very good friends of mine. What they do is always based on the elements they have at their disposition and, at this time, the judge from the Lisbon civil court has more elements than she had before. For this, I am convinced that she will decide in my favour.
The McCanns feel defamated by the conclusions in your book “A Verdade da Mentira”
It is not the fact that someone feels offended or states that they are offended makes the censorship of a publication legitimate. If that were the case and if most of the citizens had the economic power of the McCanns, no newspaper would ever make it to the stands. Half the pages would be blank. A news article, as well as an opinion, does not need to be correct to be freely expressed or published. It just needs to have a foundation and to be conceived without the intention of hurting anyone.
“The English Gag” also violently criticizes the politicians. Why?
Did any politician stand up against what is happening to me? But when they themselves or their friends are the targets of a judicial procedure, whether for paedophilia or corruption, they come out to offend the judges, the prosecutors and the judiciary police, saying that they are politically manipulated, that they are incompetent, etc.
Did you expect the politicians to criticise the decision of the Lisbon civil court?
The least I would expect was that the politicians would come out in public to say that the institution of injunctions should be reviewed so that it would no longer be possible for a judge to decide to limit the freedom of expression of a citizen solely on the basis of the elements provided by the party claiming to be offended. This is censorship and there is no other way to say it. Depending on the result of this case, will this stop here? The future only belongs to God. But if I have the financial possibilities, there could still be some surprises. I was in the judiciary police for almost 30 years. Do not underestimate me.

[quote="fred"]

Unlike the UK, the concept of fair or unfair trial is non existent in the Portuguese and many other European judicial systems.

Does that mean if you lose you can't appeal. Sorry to be dim, but I've had a few vinhos?

The right of appeal is guaranteed under Portuguese law. Merry Christmas!!!!!

fred wrote:Unlike the UK, the concept of fair or unfair trial is non existent in the Portuguese and many other European judicial systems.

Does that mean if you lose you can't appeal. Sorry to be dim, but I've had a few vinhos?

I meant the fact that media exposure or public manifestations do not affect the rulings of the court.
If I understood correctly, and I'm sure Sans_Souci can correct me, under common law if a case is excessively exposed to media coverage that can compromise the right to a fair trial.
This might be related to the disgusting behaviour of the British media. One can only imagine what would happen if Amaral where to pursuit a libel case against some of the British newspapers in a British court.

fred wrote:but I've had a few vinhos?

Branco ou tinto?

Verde!

The Famous Grouse wrote:Verde!

Tinto!


Porta da Ravessa

The Famous Grouse wrote:Verde!

Deffo verde I've had even more today, great christmas, about to open bottle number 3 Merry Christmas to all my pals on here, cheers to you all,and let's hope in 2010 we get some answers, we can live in hope. Bottoms up, and a thought to Amy still missing and no one reporting about her at this time in her life when help is still needed.

Sans_souci, you still don't seem to have produced text from Amaral's book that shows his expression of his own opinion which could be judged to be libelous. Have you read the book?

Earth calling sans-souci. Have you read Gonçalo Amaral's book? Are you receiving me?

Ah well you may have to wait a little for your answer, while I deal with real life. But in the meantime, I wish all a peaceful and happy few days

sans_souci wrote:Ah well you may have to wait a little for your answer, while I deal with real life. But in the meantime, I wish all a peaceful and happy few days

Sans_souci, a simple yes or no won't take long. Yes = you have read the book. No = you haven't read it.

Maybe Santa brought him a copy so he's away to read it now, so he can come back later and say yes!

The Famous Grouse wrote:Maybe Santa brought him a copy so he's away to read it now, so he can come back later and say yes!

I would hazard a guess that that's what he's doing!

If the Mccanns are jittery about the pending court case I still believe they could come out of it without damaging their precious reputation any further.

The tame UK PRESS will simply spin it away with pink print.

They have done it hundreds of times before.

I fail to see this stunt as anything different tbh.

As regards the money, why should they care.

It wasn't theirs to start with !

We should not forget:

- The McCanns are badly informed. The case has never gotten as far as a judge, it has only gotten to the prosecutor.

- The prosecutor of the Ministério Público who shelved the investigation – and who distributed the shelving report to the press of the entire world – wrote that the death of Madeleine is the most “probable” scenario. He hasn’t been sued yet.

- Amaral presented witnesses and the criminal case files to be analysed by the court.

- The judge from the Lisbon civil court has more elements than she had before. For this, Amaral is convinced that she will decide in his favour.

- We should not underestimate Amaral.



There is hope, imo!

Lilemor wrote:We should not forget:

- The McCanns are badly informed. The case has never gotten as far as a judge, it has only gotten to the prosecutor.

- The prosecutor of the Ministério Público who shelved the investigation – and who distributed the shelving report to the press of the entire world – wrote that the death of Madeleine is the most “probable” scenario. He hasn’t been sued yet.

- Amaral presented witnesses and the criminal case files to be analysed by the court.

- The judge from the Lisbon civil court has more elements than she had before. For this, Amaral is convinced that she will decide in his favour.

- We should not underestimate Amaral.



There is hope, imo!

A can of worms. That's what this is.
This will be the first time the process on the investigation on the disappearance of Madeleine McCann will be subjected to a strict scrutiny in a court of law under the watchful eye of the media and public.
There’s no way of telling what will crawl out of the can.
Regardless of the outcome of the appeal, the McCann’s and their entourage must be extremely apprehensive about the media exposure under conditions they can not control.

I think the McCanns now realise they have bitten off more than they can chew and were ill advised to sue Amaral. If he refuses to accept any deal, the next step will be for the McCanns to withdraw their allegations
because they realise now that every penny is needed to continue the search for their dear daughter Madeleine.

If Amaral accepts an apology and an immediate lifting of the injunction he may just accept the deal. His book and DVD will be even more popular and realise big profits for himself and the DVD Producer and Book Publisher. They may all be willing to accept a token payment from the McCanns for lost revenue, and Amaral"s
reputation will be restored.

MCXLIII wrote:

Lilemor wrote:We should not forget:

- The McCanns are badly informed. The case has never gotten as far as a judge, it has only gotten to the prosecutor.

- The prosecutor of the Ministério Público who shelved the investigation – and who distributed the shelving report to the press of the entire world – wrote that the death of Madeleine is the most “probable” scenario. He hasn’t been sued yet.

- Amaral presented witnesses and the criminal case files to be analysed by the court.

- The judge from the Lisbon civil court has more elements than she had before. For this, Amaral is convinced that she will decide in his favour.

- We should not underestimate Amaral.



There is hope, imo!

A can of worms. That's what this is.
This will be the first time the process on the investigation on the disappearance of Madeleine McCann will be subjected to a strict scrutiny in a court of law under the watchful eye of the media and public.
There’s no way of telling what will crawl out of the can.
Regardless of the outcome of the appeal, the McCann’s and their entourage must be extremely apprehensive about the media exposure under conditions they can not control.

Absolutely agree! Since 4th May 2007 the Mccanns have insisted on making their case in their own unique way. They and their mouthpieces have fed carp to the British media, who in turn have lapped it up and regurgitated it on an almost daily basis for the last 2yrs and 8 months. When the media appears to have made mistakes, the error of their ways have been pointed out to them, - penalties have been paid and disciplinary measures have been taken. And the carp and evasions have continued.

At this point it's anyone's guess what will come back to bite them on the backside at any point during these hearings and the trial itself, (if things gets that far). What's more, now is the time to watch and see just how much they, and Madeleine's wider family as a whole, appreciate the financial gifts and opportunities they have been given and how much they really need it for 'the search', imo.

Can anyone find the exact wording of the indictment against Amaral? It"s not just that he maintains Madeleine
died in Apartment 5a, but the catastrophic affect this has had on the whole Family!!!!!!! All Amaral"s lawyer
has to do is show the Cutting Edge Docu as proof the McCann Family are in good spirits and the children look
in no way trtaumatised.

That's a really good point Beattie and it should be made to Joana Morais IMHO as she's in touch with GA.
Hope you had a fab break

MJH1901 wrote:That's a really good point Beattie and it should be made to Joana Morais IMHO as she's in touch with GA.
Hope you had a fab break

By all means feel free to tell Joana, I would love to see the McCanns faces if this Docu was shown in Court.
Returned home yesterday, it poured with Rain every single day , and the sun shone on the day we were leaving.
Even had a few thunderstorms. However, I enjoyed the break, Hotel and Food couldn"t be faulted and managed
to visit a few places. Thanks for asking. Went to Porto Banus where George Clooney supposedly has a Yacht, was hoping to see him and get invited on the Yacht for drinks........dream on Beattie.

Mmmmm nice! (The holiday, of course!)

Beattie wrote:Can anyone find the exact wording of the indictment against Amaral? It"s not just that he maintains Madeleine
died in Apartment 5a, but the catastrophic affect this has had on the whole Family!!!!!!! All Amaral"s lawyer
has to do is show the Cutting Edge Docu as proof the McCann Family are in good spirits and the children look
in no way trtaumatised.

http://www.gerrymccannsblogs.co.uk/court_docs.htm may help.

sans_souci wrote:

Beattie wrote:Can anyone find the exact wording of the indictment against Amaral? It"s not just that he maintains Madeleine
died in Apartment 5a, but the catastrophic affect this has had on the whole Family!!!!!!! All Amaral"s lawyer
has to do is show the Cutting Edge Docu as proof the McCann Family are in good spirits and the children look
in no way trtaumatised.

http://www.gerrymccannsblogs.co.uk/court_docs.htm may help.

Thanks sans-souci, had a quick look but it does"nt give the exact wording of the charges. I remember thinking
when I read the charges how ridiculous it will appear in a Court when these can be easily disputed. How they
can include Madeleine, even though it is presumably to have the Fund pay the Legal Fees, really is quite
"ludicrous".

I"m off out to celebrate my Birthday by dining out in a Chinese Restaurant, catch you later.