(08.10.2013 10:10 am)
The Metro is on strike today. Everyone is present
in Court except for the Judge. The plaintiff’s
lawyer, Dra Isabel Duarte, is not present but
substituted by her assistant Dr Ricardo Alfonso, he
sits in her chair.
The session eventually starts by considering
several requests by the two parties. The first
request (from the plaintiffs) concerns documents.
The Judge reminds the Court that only documents
which are relevant will be admitted in the process.
G&P's lawyer, Dra Fatima Esteves, makes an objection
on the basis that first three documents aren't
legible. The Judge says they are. It seems the
origin of these documents was with the Madeleine
Fund site. The Judge eventually finds unjustified
the presentation of these documents.
The Judge then refers to the late formal request
by Gerald McCann and Gonçalo Amaral to take the
stand to which now is added a similar request by
Kate McCann. The Judge says that the Court will
decide about the relevance or not of these requests,
when the presentation of the matter of proof
indicated by the parties is concluded.
Now follows a request by Gonçalo Amaral's lawyer,
Dr Santos de Oliveira, regarding an Application
dated 27th September 2013 concerning the
substitution of two witnesses. The Judge observes
that this request, not being grounded as it should,
according to the Law, can't be conceded.
SO then reads an extended statement relating the
technical and financial difficulty which his client
is experiencing in researching information which is
available concerning the effect on the McCanns of
the book publication. He states that due to this
complex research it was only now that GA found the
complete version of an interview by the McCanns in
the weekly Expresso dated 6th September 2008
(online on the 7th) entitled Gonçalo Amaral é uma
vergonha ("GA is a shame"), i.e a month and a
half after the publication of the book.
to Expresso article in English>
SO continues. This interview raises the issue of
the reaction of the McCanns to the publication of
the book and mentions their intention to publicise
the process related to the disappearance of their
SO quotes the McCanns as answering "no" to
one journalist when asked if they had read the book.
Kate McCann added, "Why would I (read it)?"
and Gerald McCann claimed, "I won't learn
anything from reading it."
SO quotes further comments where the McCanns are
asked about suing Gonçalo Amaral. Gerald McCann says
they are, "...focused on what they can do to find
Madeleine and not on suing anyone." whereas Kate
McCann observes that she, "...will not lose time
with Mr Amaral."
SO observes that the McCanns also claim in the
interview that the twins, "...are very, very
happy." and do not mention any problems related
to the book. SO suggests that a month and a half
after the book was published they seem not to feel
shame, lack of appetite, anxiety, and insomnia etc.,
all psychological arguments for the case.
Apparently, the two journalists who conducted the
interview, namely, Raquel Moleiro and Rui
Gustavo, have been asked to take the stand to
confirm the accuracy of the McCann’s statements.
There is some confusion about the Expresso article,
which is in the providência cautelar
(injunction) files, but not in its full version.
Photocopies of the Expresso article which SO
brought to Court are distributed to all lawyers with
the assistance of the Clerk of the Court.
RA, Dra Duarte's substitute, opposes the request
for the interview to be included in the process
because it was already appended to in the
injunction. He adds that it is not necessary to hear
the journalists because the court does not seek to
prove whether or not the plaintiff’s statements are
accurately reproduced in the written text. He asks
for the request to include the document to be
The Judge disagrees and declares that this
document will be included within this trial's files
because it constitutes a more legible version than
the one which was joined to the providência
cautelar (injunction) relating to the banning of
the book. The Judge adds that the comments of the
readers about the interview have to be included in
the files because they illustrate the reactions of
the public to the contents of the article.
The testimony as it happened...
(08.10.2013, 11am) Ricardo Paiva, Police
Inspector now working in Funchal, Madeira gives his
evidence via video-link.
Gonçalo Amaral, who without exception attended
all sessions so far, leaves the court room.
The Judge asks the witness if he knows why he is
here by video-link.
RP says he knows.
The Judge asks if RP if he was a colleague to
RP says "yes" and adds GA was the Coordinator
of the investigation team.
The Judge asks the witness when he was a Police
Inspector in Portimão.
RP says he commenced in 2004 and finished in
The Judge asks when he participated in the
RP says it was from the very beginning and
lasted up to the shelving of the process. He adds
that even afterwards, he continued to analyse
information which kept arriving at the Portimão
Criminal Investigation Department (DIC).
The Judge asks if the witness' relations with
Gonçalo Amaral are professional or personal.
RP replies that he had a professional
relationship with GA, as one has with one's superior
but also a friendly relation, as with colleagues.
The Judge asks whether this friendship lasted.
RP says "yes".
Asked, RP swears that he will answer the truth.
GP – Considering the investigation, can you
affirm whether, because of the book, the PJ stopped
RP As I said to the Court, there was no
effect on the collection and subsequent examination
of new information on this case.
GP – Is the investigation continuing?
RP says he's not involved with this
investigation any more, but he read in the media
that it was.
GP – Do you know when the shelving report was
RP says "in June?", then corrects saying he
doesn't know the exact date.
GP – Do you know if the investigation was
reopened later, with new information?
RP It wasn't formally reopened. However,
several pieces of information arrived about possible
places where Madeleine could be. Individuals also
said they had information. All this was investigated
and the proceedings were released to the Portimão
GP – Have you read the GA book?
RP says "yes" and adds he read various books
by Gonçalo Amaral.
GP – Are the facts mentioned in this book those
of the investigation or are they new?
RP says he can affirm that what's in the book
is backed by the investigation data. He adds that
the content of the book mirrors the investigation
and can be checked since the public has access to
b) GA's lawyer, Dr Santos de Oliveira.
SO – You stated that the facts in the book are in
the investigation which you were part of. Was that
up until the shelving of the process?
RP says "yes" and that, afterwards, he sorted
out and worked on the incoming information.
SO asks whether the facts then were
The Judge overrules.
SO – What about the possibility that the child
RP says that after a certain time it is
normal to start thinking of death. He says that the
investigation took various avenues, one of them
being the death of the child. He says their British
colleagues even contemplated the possible
concealment of a cadaver.
SO – So you went on working on this case. What
did you do?
RP says his task was to examine the new
information. He processed it, introducing it into a
data base in order to cross reference with other
data. When it was necessary the PJ made external
interventions. He thinks that information still
arrives even now and is given the same treatment.
SO – During this processing of data retrieval and
comparing, did you notice a change after the book
RP says he didn't at all.
SO – What happened then?
RP says the volume of information was more or
less the same. He adds that none of the various
published books or newspaper articles stopped the
SO – When the files are shelved, is it normal to
continue to process information?
RP says "yes". The police have to examine
every piece of information in order to establish
whether it is relevant or not.
SO – Was a work team constituted to process
RP says they were two officers for that job,
both of them having knowledge about the case. The
witness then alludes to the Scotland Yard review and
says that the processed information was transmitted
to the team that worked with SY.
SO asks when this team was formed, if it was
after the publication of the book.
RP says it was much later.
c) The Producer and Publisher of the documentary
(VC)'s lawyer, Dr Henrique Costa Pinto.
VC – Have you watched the documentary?
RP says he did.
VC – This documentary was based on Gonçalo
Amaral's book. Does it refer to facts that aren't
mentioned in the investigation?
RP answers that the documentary was
synonymous with the book. He says that if the
documentary was based on the book then that in turn
by inference was also based on the investigation...
VC interrupts and insists, repeating his
RP says the book both exhibits what is in the
investigation and the author's opinion about it.
VC observes that an opinion is an opinion and
facts are facts. He wants the witness to tell the
Court if the documentary contains facts that aren't
in the criminal process.
RP says the documentary, according to his
understanding, is based on the facts of the criminal
VC - Only on facts?
RP – Yes, facts complemented by an opinion
VC – And the book?
RP says that the book is based on the
investigation, contains an opinion about the
investigation data and also refers to GA's
experience as a police inspector.
VC – Do you remember the conclusions (of the
RP says he remembers vaguely.
VC – Have you found conclusions that are in
conflict with the content of the criminal process?
The Judge overrules saying that it is not what
they are here trying to establish. She says that the
Court is attempting to ascertain facts, not
d) TVI's lawyer, Dr Miguel Coroadinha.
TVI - Up to what date were you involved in
sorting out the incoming information?
RP Until the start of 2012.
TVI – Between 2008 and 2012, did you note a
The Judge interrupts again saying that the
witness has already answered that question and adds
that the witness hasn't observed any differences.
TVI – Was the new team to help Scotland Yard
constituted before you left?
RP says the media informed us about this, he
says the new team is in Porto to reanimate the
2) McCann’s lawyer, Dr Ricardo Afonso.
RA - Can you explain to the Court how this team
was constituted and why it wasn't constituted
RP answers that the lawyer must ask this
question to the PJ National Director as he is not
familiar with the reasons that led to the formation
of this team.
RA – You said that what is in the book is also in
the criminal process?
RP replies that he said that the book is
based on the criminal process and supports the
opinion of the author.
RA says he wants to know whether the final part
of the book which states, "Para mim e os
investigadores..." (For me and my team)...
The judge overrules saying this is not a fact,
but a conclusion. She observes that the lawyers will
have to work for the final allegations; they'll have
to distinguish between what is fact, indication or
The Judge (Maria Emília de Melo e Castro) is now
MC – What are the revelations of the book?
RP asks the Judge to explain...
MC interrupts and repeats – What is new in this
RP Compared to the investigation, nothing.
The Judge seizes the book, on her desk, and waves
it in the direction of the screen.
MC – Doesn't the cover say it has unique
TVI's lawyer says "no".
The Judge asks him to kindly not comment.
RP answers that there is nothing new in the
MC – Shall I have to conclude then that what's on
the cover is misleading publicity?
MC – Is there or is there not?
MC insists again and again RP mumbles.
MC – Then there are no revelations!
There is a few seconds silence, like a relief
after a tension.