|
Libel
Trial McCann v Gonçalo Amaral - Day 3 Witness No 2
The
testimony as it happened...
(19.09.2013, 12:45 pm) João Melchior Gomes
via video-conference. He retired (November 2010) but
has the title of Deputy Attorney General (AG) and is
addressed as Procurador Geral Adjunto. He
must nevertheless swear to tell the truth (but no
bible and no gesture). He is the (only) person
who effectively signed the AG Report.
–
The judge asks him if he is aware of what the court
is judging.
–
MG responds that it is a trial against Gonçalo
Amaral.
–
The judge reminds him that there are three other
defendants in the libel case and asks what MG's
involvement in the investigation amounted to.
– MG says that in September 2007 he
was charged with the task of supervising the work of
the Procurador da Republica,
José de Magalhães e
Menezes. He was then in Evora as Deputy AG but also
visited Portimão and Praia da Luz a number of times.
He had two contacts with Gonçalo Amaral. The first
was related to the intervention of the British
cadaver dogs (Eddie and Keela) and the subsequent
forensic analysis of samples. The second was through
Guilhermino da Encarnação, the PJ Director in Faro,
they had a meeting with the investigation team in
Portimão.
The
judge asks whether his relationship with Gonçalo
Amaral was personal or professional.
MG
answers "only professional".
1) McCann family lawyer, Isabel Duarte, is the first
to question the witness.
ID
explains that the issue at stake is the effect which
Goncalo Amaral's book had following its publication
in July 2008. She asks whether MG is aware of
any developments subsequent to the release of the AG
Report which could have led to the reopening of the
case. MG says no new element emerged which
the Public Ministry was aware of. There was
information received but it was found to be
irrelevant to the case. That was the situation at
least up until November 2010, when he retired.
ID
asks if the AG Report reflects the results of the
criminal investigation up to July 2008.
MG answers
that the Report is based on evidence (elementos
de prova) gathered by the PJ, GNR, etc. and
also, by Leicestershire Police and others in the UK,
He says that thousands of people were contacted.
ID
– Was all the information made available to the
public?
MG says
"yes", except for documents relating to people
investigated or convicted of sex crimes.
ID
– Are the facts mentioned in his book (Amarals) and
in the documentary part of the investigation?
MG says he
didn't read the book nor did he watch the
documentary.
A
momentary silence envelops the court room. ID then
states that, if that is the case then she will refer
to the PJ Files 2587-2602 (Vol X) dated 10 SEP 2007
(Report by Inspector Tavares de Almeida). She doesn't
have a copy of the documents however and neither
does the Judge. The Court clerk hurriedly exits the
Court in an attempt to find them.
ID
– The book and the documentary are based on the
conclusions of this Report, do you remember it?
MG says he
doesn't. He says that the first formal meeting he
was part of was on the 12th September 2007. He says
that intermediate Reports were signed by Magalhães e
Menezes. He knows that Tavares de Almeida for some
reason ceased collaborating.
He
says his confidence is in the AG Report and he
doesn't see any reason to alter its findings. He can
only say that it was written in close collaboration
with Magalhães e Menezes.
He
remembers it was never understood at the time
however how Robert Murat became a suspect merely on
the basis of a British journalist's statement.
ID
– But Robert Murat isn't "autor" (plaintiff)!
2) Defence lawyers.
a) Guerra & Paz's lawyer's questions
GP
– Was it normal to nominate another Public
Prosecutor to supervise the process?
MG observes
that he was nominated as Deputy AG.
Meanwhile the Court clerk is back with a few CDs
saying she found no paper copy of the Report. The
Judge says she doesn't see the point in any event
.
The judge (Maria Emília de Melo e Castro) is now
asking
MC
– Therefore the content of the DVD doesn't include
all the files?
MG says
that files relating to sex offenders and those
involved in sex related crimes were suppressed.
MC
– Can we conclude therefore that, except for the
identity of certain persons who were ruled out, a
complete copy of the PJ files was released to the
public?
MG
hesitates a few seconds and answers "yes".
Evidence ends. |
