Libel
trial McCann v Gonçalo Amaral - Day 13 –
Final claimant speech
The hearing as it happened
(10.12.2014, 10 am)
All lawyers are present, except for Dra
Isabel Duarte, substituted (no reason
given) by her assistant, who therefore
occupies her chair. Each lawyer will
stand up while speaking (whereas up to
this hearing they always remained
sitting when speaking).
The judge Maria Emília de Melo e
Castro opens the session alluding to
the 30 days that are granted to the
plaintiffs to obtain from the High Court
the authorisation to legally represent,
in this trial, their missing daughter.
After this time, the lawyers (all
requested it) will have 10 days to hand
written alegações de direito
(allegations concerning points of law
and their interpretation) over to
the court (whereas the matter of fact
concerns what happened and how it
happened, the matter of law comes under
the conformity to law and justice).
The McCann lawyer, Dr Ricardo Correia
Afonso, shows first a copy of
Gonçalo Amaral's book, says it is the
4th edition and he bought it recently,
hence it is findable. He starts reading
a list of numerous points with a rather
monotonous voice and at top speed, only
sometimes using an ironic intonation.
– RCA refers to the Correio da
Manhã interview (with title on the first
page)
http://joana-morais.blogspot.com/2014/06/hidden-evidence.html
where Gonçalo Amaral, last June, repeats
that the parents were guilty and
mentions a cremation story.
– RCA speaks of bookshops selling
GA's book and compares prices. He states
how much money GA made with his book :
over 342 thousand euros and over 22
thousand euros of foreign copy rights,
etc. (no Brazilian specific edition).
– RCA then speaks of the DVD's
price (6,95 €). GA made over 37.000 €
with the DVD and got 10% of the 330
thousand paid by TVI to VC filmes. VC
filmes and VC multimedia ceded the
documentary only to Portugal and PALOP
countries.
He
mentions a site where the DVD could be
bought but that doesn't exist any more.
– About
the number of people who watched the
documentary, RCA says that the audience
was the biggest ever for Portuguese TV :
over 2.200.000 spectators, 61,8% dos
Portuguese who watch TV. He refers to
the Group Marktest study about this.
http://webcache.googleusercontent.com/search?q=cache:bY6zyTSuFhQJ:media.iolnegocios.pt/media1201/06dec
159728e1d013ad0320f746537bf/+&cd=1&hl=fr&ct=clnk&gl=pt&client=firefox-a
– RCA summarises briefly what the
MC's witnesses have stated before the
Court, from Emma Loach to Trish Cameron.
http://www.gerrymccannsblogs.co.uk/AnneGuedes.htm
– Concerning the 75 thousand DVDs sold,
RCA observes that the destruction of the
remaining copies needs to be clarified.
He notes contradictions between numbers
and finally concludes that 745 copies
are missing. Where are they ?
– RCA qualifies GA's activity as
"criminal mischief" since the judicial
secrecy had to be respected, as required
by the PGR, up to the first half of
August (2008).
http://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/P17/17_VOLUME_XVIIa_Page_4478.jpg
– RCA alludes chronologically to
15 news articles (some of them in
Spanish), after the book was published,
accusing the McCanns of concealing the
body or suggesting that the child had
died in the bedroom or wondering whether
she's alive, etc. He observes that those
national and international articles on
the alleged death of the child increased
the sales of the book. He refers also to
various authorities to demonstrate that
the book and the documentary were
essential elements to convince people
that the child had died. He quotes page
221 of A verdade da mentira :
Ocorreu uma simulação de
rapto ;
There was a simulation of
abduction.
Kate Healy e Gerald McCann
são suspeitos de
envolvimento na ocultação do
cadáver da sua filha ;
Kate Healy and Gerald McCann
are suspects of involvement
in the concealment of their
daughter's body.
A morte poderá ter
sobrevindo em resultado de
um trágico acidente ;
Death could have occurred as
a result of a tragic
accident. |
– RCA
mentions the report that the inspector
Tavares de Almeida sent to GA on the
10.09.2007, and its implications : if
the child is dead, finding her ceases
being an emergency. Comparing this
report with the book he finds
differences.
http://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/PJ/TAVARES_ALMEIDA.htm#p10p2603
– He
describes GA as pretending to be
magnanimous, knowledgeable and punitive
and qualifies his conclusions as
"primary". In the perspective of a
semantical and graphical analysis of the
book, the cover, for instance, was
conceived to suggest a police file. RCA
observes that there is no discrimination
between reality and fiction.
– RCA points to the beginning of
the DVD : I will prove...
O meu nome is Gonçalo
Amaral, fui investigador da
Polícia Judiciária durante
27 anos. Coordenei a
investigação do
desaparecimento de Madeleine
McCann no 3 de Maio de 2007.
Nas próximas 50 minutes, vou
provar que a criança não foi
raptada e que morreu no
apartamento de ferias na
Praia da Luz.
My name is Gonçalo Amaral,
I've been an investigator
with the Polícia Judiciária
during 27 years, I
coordinated the
investigation into the
disappearance of Madeleine
McCann on the 3rd of May
2007. During the following
50 minutes, I will prove
that the child wasn't
abducted and that she died
in the holiday apartment in
Praia da Luz. |
– To
illustrate the argument that the book
tends to rely on lies to deceive the
reader, RCA mentions GA referring to
Carnival day (in 2008 on the 5th of
February) as being a Sunday (when it's
always on Tuesday). Though the legal
hunt period was then finished, GA writes
he can hear hare hunters.
– RCA qualifies GA's wish to
defend his good name as a kind of
poetical surge. In contrast and though
the McCann couple were cleared, GA
produces judgements of value like
calling Madeleine's Fund
que atingiu mais de 2
milhões de libras, um crime
de burla ou abuso de
confiança.
that had reached over 2
millions pounds, a fraud or
a breach of trust.
|
Or,
speaking of the home country of the MC,
Para mim a investigação
estava morta desde 2 de
Outubro de 2007, quando
parecia ter vingado um novo
ultimatum inglês no próprio
dia em que se discutia o
Tratado de Lisboa..
For me the investigation was
dead from the 2nd of October
2007, when a new English
ultimatum seemed to have won
out on the precise day the
Lisbon Treaty was
discussed.. |
– RCA argues that GA dropped the
elements that could cast doubt on his
thesis, destroying the processual
evidence and fuelling the uncertainties
about what happened on that night. GA
always said, in order to stimulate the
expectancies, that he detained much more
evidence than what had been made public.
– RCA underlines that the highest
authorities of the PJ, like Alípio
Ribeiro, talked of precipitation
concerning the statute of arguido
(formal suspect).
– RCA refers to the doubts
related to the Jane Tanner statements..
Estas (Jane's declarações)
não batem certo. Qual a
necessidade de o eventual
raptor ter caminhado para a
zona mais aberta, apesar de
não existir luminosidade
suficiente que permitisse a
Jane Tanner aperceber-se de
tantos pormenores?
These (Jane's statements)
don't match. Why should the
eventual abductor (in a
planned abduction) have
walked toward a more open
area, whereas there was no
sufficient luminosity to
allow JT to note so many
details (on the pyjamas). |
..
though, he notes, GA insists on the
importance of the first statement
São essas primeiras
declarações que passam,
quase sempre, a ser as mais
importantes, por serem
contemporâneas ao
acontecimento.
The first statements almost
always appear to be the most
important, because they're
contemporaneous to the
event. |
– RCA observes that vague and
inconsistent sentences end up making it
complicated for the reader to make their
own analysis and notes a difference
between Jane's statements and the way
that they are reported by GA (for
instance 'Tanner' carrier's hair), a
police authority. He recalls that
truncation can be used for manipulation
purpose.
– Considering the Smith family episode,
RCA observes that GA describes their
route in a condensed manner and, in
spite of the similarity between the 'S'
carrier and the 'Tanner' one, in
equivalent conditions of street
lighting, isn't capable to compare the
first to the second, whom he depreciates
and considers inconsistent. The presence
of this family of 9 refutes GA's
argument that streets were deserted.
–
In the perspective of
the demonisation by GA of the McCann
couple, RCA compares the MS statement to
the way it is reported in the book. In
the book MS recognized (in the statement
he thought it could be the same man) the
carrier he saw when watching on TV
Gerald McCann getting out of the plane
carrying his little son in September
2007. GA insists on the same
uncomfortable way to carry the child,
whereas anyone can see on the photograph
that the father is very much at ease
doing this. It is very likely that MS
was influenced by what he saw on TV,
since this plane episode happened two
days after the McCanns were made
arguidos. RCA underlines that the
rest of the family didn't confirm the
impression of MS. Facts are omitted in
order to amplify the negative effects.
– The
sketch of the route taken by the S
carrier is exemplary (p. 116 of the
book). Though he could come from many
directions, one is imposed.
– GA says that Mark Harrison (the
NPIA expert in missing persons who
offered to call for specialized dogs
among many other things) studied a death
scenario whereas, in the translation of
MH's report, there's no conclusion that
the child was killed, it is just a
possibility and MH says that other
scenarios could be considered, which is
confirmed in his second report.
– About
the EVRD and CSI dogs, Mark Harrison
claims that their alerts are only police
clues and not proofs, they need to be
corroborated. The important place given
to the dogs in GA's book is explained
just by the fact that the dogs don't
lie.
–
The passage..
foi comunicado o seguinte: o
ADN do sangue encontrado na
bagageira da viatura usada
pelo casal McCann tem uma
correspondência de 50% com
Gerald McCann, devendo ser
de um descendente seu.
We were told this : the DNA
in the blood found in the
boot of the car used by the
McCann couple shows a 50%
match with Gerald McCann,
implying a filiation link. |
.. sounds like a fiction novel, the
objective being to manipulate the
reader.
–
In the following passage (p. 184)
starting with..
Nos primeiros
dias de Setembro...
On the first days of
September... |
.. logic is missing.
Lemos o
relatório e não concordamos
com a desilusão de Stuart
(Prior, Leicestershire
Constabulary superintendent)
We read the report (of the
FFS Birmingham) and we don't
agree with Stuart's
delusion,
|
… which is
however confirmed by the second report
from the FFS.
Here RCA
is trying to show that neither MH (who
spoke of intelligence, nothing else),
nor MG (who spoke of contamination,
nothing else) nor SP supported the
decision to make the McCanns arguidos.
He mentions the EVRD's discoveries in
the McCann flat, examines the handler's
report that, contrary to the book, says
that no human residues were localised
and interprets the unsupported evidence
as intending to manipulate. The
statements of the British experts were
wrongly interpreted by the Portuguese
investigators and the result was the
arguido statute imposed on the
McCanns, as it is suggested by the then
head of the PJ, Alípio
Ribeiro.
– RCA refers to John Lowe (the
head of the FFS) who clearly said that
the DNA was incomplete and was a mixture
of various persons' DNA, making any
conclusion impossible. RCA notes that
the Portuguese investigation team had
time to contact John Lowe before
drastically deciding to make the McCanns
arguidos.
– Back to the dogs, an issue that GA's
book emphasises, RCA questions the
necessary handling rigour and quotes MG
and MH while underlining that no
evidence can be drawn from the dogs'
alerts, a claim that is repeated in
various reports and explains the UK
tensions.
At that point, the judge Maria Emília
de Melo e Castro, who has been
listening with attention but without
taking notes (is the hearing recorded as
the other were ?) interrupts Dr Ricardo
Afonso, telling him that he only has 5
minutes left and must conclude.
As another lawyer needs a short break,
Dr Ricardo Afonso has some time to
prepare his conclusion.
Nevertheless, after the break, he
repeats details of the dogs' operation
in the flat and wonders why the CC toy
wasn't tested. He was obviously taken by
surprise at the judge cutting him short.
There's a moment of attempts to speak,
hesitations and silences, ending with
the lawyer simply saying "nothing
more".
And so it
was.
This
rather unexpected end gains sense if all
lawyers, including Dra Isabel Duarte,
will produce written allegations.
It
should be kept in mind that this speech
lasted for about 2 hours. This is far to
be a verbatim.
Thanks to
Astro for clarifying some points.
Many thanks for smoothing
the English to Ima, CPN and SP from QV
whose members always welcome opponent
opinion |