ID - The Maddie case has been deeply and amply treated, there have been many other books...

IS interrupts objecting she read none of these books. She thinks they're not of much concern and adds that none of them has the credibility or impact of a book written by an ex-inspector who was initially in charge of the case.

ID asks if she knows that former PJ inspector Moita Flores commented on the Maddie case and the book on TV.

IS knows that the book was commented on TV, on the news. She remembers that MF praised Gonçalo Amaral and she adds that a child can be missing without the parents being guilty. She remembers the title "PJ inspector agrees with homicide". She wrote on the providencia cautelar (the Injunction) because the people imagined that the issue was to examine whether the parents were guilty or not, she wanted to speak on freedom of expression versus the right to a good name.

She resumes her narrative about newspapers which publish anything just for a story, people who accept anything as the truth, etc.

ID asks whether the facts mentioned in the book and the documentary were facts established in the Final Report.

IS thinks they're not, otherwise the parents would have be tried. She says that none of the allegations were proved. She says it is typical Portuguese provincialism to believe the opposite of what a Final Report says.

ID - Were the facts mentioned by Gonçalo Amaral ascertained?

IS thinks "no". The Final Report says there is no proof. She adds that it is not legitimate to speak of freedom of expression without limits.

ID - asks whether the witness speaks of a paragraph in the book or of the insinuations in the conclusions.

The Judge overrules, she requires more precision.

ID - says she refers to the paragraph containing the words, “fraud or abuse of trust...” ("burla ou

abuso de...")

During a moment of relaxation at one of these meetings, I did a side step or I might have been inopportune and rather undiplomatic. Worried with the possibility that the McCann couple were somehow involved in their daughter's disappearance and reflecting about the kind of crime they might have committed, something occurred to me. If, really, any type of responsibility of the McCann couple was confirmed, then the fund set up to finance the search for Madeleine that had reached nearly €3 million could be a crime of fraud or abuse of trust. This question was debated and, in fact, with such premises the crimes of qualified fraud or abuse of trust could exist, but Portugal would have no jurisdiction to investigate and judge it. The fund being legally registered in England, it would be our English colleagues who would deal with the case. Our English colleagues then realised a hard reality: the strong possibility that they would have a crime to investigate in their own country, with the McCann couple as the main suspects: a prospect that left them rather reluctant.

IS interrupts and says she didn't read any reference to that fact in the Final Report.

SO objects that this isn't a fact and the Judge concurs.

ID - asks how she can explain the effect of...

IS interrupts and says that whoever reads it sees all the pieces fall into place, the theory seems genuine, it doesn't leave room for doubt. She says it is written from the perspective of a victim.

The Judge again overrules...

IS interrupts saying it's her reading of the book. She adds that if it was true the McCanns would be in jail.

2) Defence lawyers.

a) TVI lawyers’ questions.

TVI - You're not sure about the over 2 millions of audience share?

IS says that at the time she thinks an article was written on this but it's easy to check.

She makes a gesture towards her bag but stops as nobody reacts.

TVI - Are you speaking as a journalist?

IS says "yes".

TVI - asks a conclusive question about freedom of expression versus good name.

The Judge again overrules.

IS resumes her narrative criticising the documentary where the group is shown drinking and a little girl left alone without any alternative point of view. How could parents agree with fifty minutes of that? She says that after 33 years of professional work she's allowed to value judgements.

TVI - wants to know if the witness has evidence comparisons on the topic of decreasing interest.

IS says she has.

b) Valentim de Carvalho (DVD production/distribution) lawyer's questions

VC - Do you remember when the Final Report was released?

IS starts to claim vehemently and loudly that Gonçalo Amaral had no right to, he has an obsession... She mentions the Intermediate Report that he signed (10th September by Tavares de Almeida). She insists that it is worse than the book. She says the book is very well written, easy to read.