|
Common Action nr.
1454/09.5TVLSB
Common Action nr. 1454/09.5TVLSB-B
In the appended declarative actions,
under the common form of process
(originally, under the ordinary form of
process), that KATE MARIE HEALY MACCANN,
GERALD PATRICK MACCANN, MADELEINE BETH
MACCANN, SEAN MICHAEL MACCANN AND AMELIE
EVE MACCANN move against GONÇALO DE
SOUSA AMARAL (action nr. 1454/09.5TVLSB)
and against GONÇALO DE SOUSA AMARAL,
GUERRA E PAZ, EDITORES, S.A., V.C. –
VALENTIM DE CARVALHO – FILMES,
AUDIOVISUAIS, S.A. AND TVI – TELEVISÃO
INDEPENDENTE, S.A. (action
1454/09.5TVLSB-B), the decision of facts
is as follows, based on the instructor
basis/themes of evidence of the causes:
Article 1 – Proven.
Article 2 – Proven that the cover price
of the book “Maddie A Verdade da Mentira”
in Portugal was set by defendant Guerra
e Paz Editores, S.A. at 13,33 euro
(thirteen euro and thirty three cents),
VAT included.
Articles 3 and 4 – Proven that defendant
Gonçalo Amaral received from sales of
the book “Maddie A Verdade da Mentira”,
during the years of 2008 and 2009, the
amount of 342.111.86 euro (three hundred
and forty two thousand one hundred and
eleven euro and eighty six cents).
Article 5 – Not proven.
Article 6 – Proven that the DVD was sold
by Presselivre, Imprensa Livre, S.A.,
jointly with the newspaper that it owned
– “Correio da Manhã” – for a price of
6,95 euro (six euro and ninety five
cents), VAT included.
Article 7 – Proven that defendant
Gonçalo received from DVD sales, in the
year of 2008, the amount of 40.000 euro
(forty thousand euro).
Article 8 – Proven that the DVD
mentioned under item AN) was edited and
the edited copies were sold by Valentim
de Carvalho Multimédia, S.A. under an
agreement with Presselivre, Imprensa
Livre, S.A.
Article 9 – Not proven.
Article 10 – Proven.
Article 11 – Not proven.
Article 12 – Not proven.
Article 13 – Proven that as a
consequence of the statements by
defendant Gonçalo Amaral in the book, in
the documentary and in the interview to
Correio da Manhã, authors Kate MacCann
and Gerald MacCann felt anger, despair,
anguish, preoccupation, having suffered
insomnia and a lack of appetite.
Article 14 – Proven that the same
authors felt ill being for being
considered, by people who believe in
Gonçalo Amaral’s thesis about the
disappearance of Madeleine MacCann,
responsible for hiding her body and for
simulating her abduction.
Article 15 – Proven that authors Kate
MacCann and Gerald MacCann feel, with
great preoccupation, the need of keeping
their younger children away from
knowledge about the aforementioned
thesis.
Article 16 – Not proven.
Article 17 – Proven that Sean and Amelie
started school in August of 2010 and do
not yet possess knowledge of defendant
Gonçalo Amaral’s aforementioned thesis.
Article 18 – Proven.
Article 19 – Proven that defendant
Gonçalo Amaral entered his retirement
from the Polícia Judiciária on the 1st
of July of 2008.
Article 20 – Proven that on the 21st of
July of 2008 the Procuradoria Geral da
República [Attorney General’s office]
released a “Nota para a Comunicação
Social” [“Note for the Media”]
announcing that the archiving of the
inquiry referred under item E) of the
given facts had been decided and
informing that this inquest could be
reopened, by initiative from the Public
Ministry or under request from an
interested party, if new evidence
appeared that would originate serious,
pertinent and consequent diligences.
Article 21 – Not proven.
Article 22 – Not proven.
Article 23 – Proven that the sale of the
book was made partly on consignment and
partly on firm account with a right to
devolution, being subject to devolution
for various motives, namely
manufacturing defects, handling or
non-transaction.
Article 24 – Proven.
Article 25 – Proven.
Articles 27 and 28 – Proven that the
facts relating to the criminal
investigation into the disappearance of
Madeleine McCann which Gonçalo Amaral
refers to in the book, in the interview
to newspaper “Correio da Manhã” and in
the documentary are, in its majority,
facts that occurred and are documented
in that investigation.
Article 29 – Proven that following a
social deliberation on the 27th of
October of 2008 a capital raise of
defendant VC – Valentim de Carvalho –
Filmes, Audiovisuais, S.A. took place,
which was registered on the 28th of
September of 2009, therefore the firm’s
capital was henceforth held, in a
proportion of 60% by “Estúdios Valentim
de Carvalho – Gravações e Audiovisuais,
S.A” and in the proportion of 40% by the
Fundo de Investimento para o Cinema e
Audiovisual.
Article 30 – Proven that defendant VC –
Valentim de Carvalho – Filmes,
Audiovisuais, S.A agreed with Valentim
de Carvalho, Multimédia, S.A on June 6,
2008, to cede the latter the rights to
sell, distribute, exhibit and braodcast
a set of cinematographic and audiovisual
works (movies, mini-series and
documentaries) that it proposed to
produce within a period of 5 years.
Article 31 – Proven.
Article 32 – Proven.
Article 33 – Proven.
Article 34 – Proven.
Article 35 – Proven only that the
documentary’s DVD was distributed for
sale jointly with the distribution for
sale of newspaper “Correio da Manhã”.
Article 36 – Proven.
Article 37 – Proven.
Motivation
The abovementioned affirmative and
restrictive answers result from the
critical and conjugated analysis of all
the documental evidence, the viewing of
registries of image and sound
(especially the viewing in audience of
the DVD “Maddie A Verdade da Mentira”),
witnesses and the statements by the
parties that were produced; the
evidential elements that will be
particularly indicated further ahead
have been valued, in their replies’
order.
Among general considerations, it is
important to enumerate the documents
that have been appended to the processes
(the main cases and the injunction)
which assumed higher relevance for the
formation of the conviction, which are:
a) An extract of the original of
newspaper “Correio da Manhã” dated July
24, 2008 that includes the interview by
defendant Gonçalo Amaral – pages 93 to
98 of the injunction.
b) A copy of newspaper “Público” dated
April 15, 2009, mentioning the number of
viewers that saw the broadcast of the
documentary – page 130 of the
injunction.
c) An extract of the publication
“Notícias TV” with the shares of the
same documentary – page 132 of the
injunction.
d) A copy of the dispatch that closed
inquiry nr 201/07.0GALGS, pages 144 to
173 of the injunction.
e) Advertising of the book launch on the
24th of July – page 371 of the
injunction.
f) Contract “Opção de Direitos Deal
Memo” between Gonçalo Amaral and
defendant VC – Filmes dated March 7,
2008 – pages 422 and 423 of the
injunction.
g) “Contrato Geral de Distribuição”
between VC Filmes and Valentim de
Carvalho Multimédia dated June 6, 2008
and “Adenda para Obras Televisivas”
dated February 28, 2009 – pages 916 to
924 of the injunction.
h) “Contrato de Distribuição de
Videogramas” between Valentim de
Carvalho Multimédia, S.A and Presselivre,
Imprensa Livre, S.A., dated March 31,
2009 – pages 1047 to 1053 of the
injunction.
i) “Contrato de Cedência de Direitos de
Autor” between Guerra e Paz and Gonçalo
Amaral, dated March 10, 2008 – pages 277
to 281 of the main process.
j) Copy of the “Nota para a Comunicação
Social” from the Attorney General’s
Office dated July 21, 2008 – page 536 of
the main.
k) Information dated January 18, 2012,
from the Polícia Judiciária, stating
that up to that date no request had been
received from authors Kate and Gerald
MacCann requesting the reopening of the
investigation – page 1037 of the main.
l) Information from “Marktest Audimetria,
S.A” concerning television audiences for
the broadcast of the documentary – page
1045 of the main.
m) Information from the Polícia
Judiciária concerning the date of
retirement of defendant Gonçalo Amaral
(July 1st of 2008) – page 1046 of the
main.
n) Information from Presselivre, S.A
concerning the DVD’s selling price (6,95
euro including VAT) – page 1047 of the
main.
o) Copies of receipts emitted by
defendant Gonçalo Amaral to defendant
Guerra e Paz, summing up 307.900,69 euro
– pages 1054 to 1056 of the main.
p) Copies of receipts emitted by the
same defendant to Valentim de Carvalho
Filmes summing up 36.000,00 euro – pages
1085 to 1087 of the main.
q) Information from the Polícia
Judiciária dated January 13, 2012 about
the treatment given to material with an
investigative potential after the
investigation was closed – page 1116 of
the main.
r) Information from the Polícia
Judiciária dated May 30, 2012 regarding
the same matter – pages 1292 to 1294 of
the main.
s) Information from defendant “Guerra e
Paz” concerning the book’s cover price –
page 1368 of the main.
t) Record number 3 from the board
meeting of defendant VC Filmes and the
certificate of registration of that firm
– pages 1819 to 1840 of the main.
u) Receipts emitted by Valentim de
Carvalho Multimédia to Presselivre, S.A
– pages 1841 and 1842 of the main.
v) A statement from VASP concerning the
sending for destruction of 63.369 copies
of the DVD – page 1843 of the main. w)
Information from the Tax Authority
concerning income declared by defendant
Gonçalo Amaral during the years of 2008
and 2009 – page 1095 of the main.
x) A copy of the book “Maddie A Verdade
da Mentira” appended to the process. y)
A copy of the DVD carrying the same
name, equally appended to the process,
which was viewed in court session.
z) A digital copy of the investigation
as handed over to the Media.
Further within general considerations,
it is also important to perform a
summary and critical analysis of the
main witness statements, given by:
(i) Susan Lorraine Hubbard – Married to
an Anglican Pastor who practised in the
Algarve, she arrived in Portugal three
days after the child’s disappearance.
She became friends with authors Kate and
Gerald MacCann. She stated that they are
very strong persons, “they are doctors”,
referring that “many people turned their
backs on them” after the publication of
the book and especially after the
broadcast of the documentary. She said
she witnessed that type of scene. She
stated that the idea that everyone
thought that the child was dead was
devastating for them, that they were
angered and sad, fearing that people
would believe that Madeleine is dead and
justice is not done. When questioned,
she stated that the authors were not
exactly offended by the book, but
surprised about the fact of its
publication in the manner that it took
place.
(ii) Emma Loach – she worked for the
MacCann couple as a freelance producer
in the documentary that was produced by
them one year after the disappearance.
She became friends with them. She
described them as “strong and stoic” and
corroborated that Kate and Gerald
MacCann’s main concern was that people
would think Madeleine was dead, as this
would mean that they would stop looking
for her. She stated a fact that is
contradicted by the investigation – that
before the book the theory that
Madeleine died in the apartment didn’t
exist. She mentioned feelings of shame
and humiliation by Kate and Gerald
MacCann after the publication of the
book and the broadcast of the
documentary, which are not supported,
either by their personalities or by
their own statements. Because of these
aspects and also because this person is
part of the circle of people that have
worked or work for the couple and/or for
the “Madeleine Fund”, her deposition is
subject to a particularly critical
judgement of credibility.
(iii) David Martin Trickey – the
couple’s consultant in the psychology
area, in the interaction between the
couple and the two other children
((mentioned during evidence as “the
twins”). He has been a clinical
psychologist for approximately 20 years,
and has worked for 10 years with
families of missing children. He met the
couple’s two other children a few weeks
after the disappearance, mentioning that
the children, due to their age, were
protected from the book’s effects. He
stated that it is feared that once they
are exposed to the book, they may
question their trust in their parents
and in their capacity to protect them.
He referred that another preoccupation
is that the children’s friends may
confront them with the book and use it
to attack them. He said that his
intervention with the children was drawn
within the perspective of an “ambiguous
loss”, alluding, in this part, to the
disappearance of Madeleine McCann.
(iv) Angus McBride – lawyer, he assisted
and represented Kate and Gerald McCann
in that capacity, advising them over the
criminal investigation, liaising with
the Portuguese lawyers and aiding them
“with media coverage”. He is an expert
in criminal law and in dealing with the
media. His deposition was almost
exclusively made up of opinions, mainly
over the book’s impact on public opinion
in the United Kingdom.
(v) Alan Robert Pike – with a degree in
social sciences, he was hired by the
authors’ Algarve trip’s tourism
operator, and towards the end of 2007,
by the McCann couple to render services
in the area of psychology. He stated
that the publication of the book and of
its conclusions caused the couple
anguish and that one of the most
devastating effects for them was
believing that it would influence public
opinion, making people stop looking for
Madeleine. He stated that Kate McCann
told him that she had spent many days
crying because of the injustice that the
publication of the book represented. He
said that when she watched the
documentary she was even more
devastated. He described both members of
the couple as “angry, frustrated and
desperate over not being able to do
anything”. When questioned about Kate
and Gerald McCann’s feelings after
having been made arguidos, he stated,
somewhat paradoxically, that they were
confused over not having been made
arguidos earlier, that they were
prepared for that and that the fact
caused them no trauma. Once more,
because this is a person that worked for
the couple, his deposition is subject to
a particularly critical credibility
judgement, and must be placed side by
side with others or safely supported on
rules of common experience.
(vi) João Melchior Gomes – currently a
retired Joint General Prosecutor, he was
invited on the 10th of September of 2007
to take over the supervision and
coordination of the criminal inquiry,
which he did until November 8/9, 2010.
He stated that until he left his post
the inquiry was not reopened, and he was
one of the signatories of the closing
dispatch. He gave no further relevant
information.
(vii) Ana Cláudia Brites Nogueira Santos
Fernandes – Worked for the McCann couple
between September of 2009 and August of
2011, in its relationship with the
media. She denied that attention from
the media and from the general public
diminished with the book’s publication,
stating that between 2009 and 2011 there
were approximately 3000 news articles
“very focused on the book’s opinion”.
She also stated that the documentary
circulated on the internet, with English
subtitles.
(viii) Michael Terence Wright – married
to a cousin of author Kate McCann, he
knows her since she was 10 years old. He
stated that the couple’s first reaction
to the book was one of “a lot of anger”
and that before the book there were
already internet “chats” that speculated
on the disappearance and talked about
the possibility of death and a cover-up.
The credibility of his deposition is
darkened by the fact that he carried, at
the time of his deposition, handwritten
notes that contained, in almost perfect
chronological order, topics for replies
to the questions that were put to him
during the final hearing.
(ix) Brigid Patricia Cameron – Gerald
McCann’s sister, she came to Portugal on
the Saturday following the
disappearance, stayed for three months
and then returned to “take” the family
back to the United Kingdom. She followed
authors Kate and Gerald McCann closely,
revealing detailed knowledge of their
emotions and states of mind, although
the close family relationship advises
that her deposition is always conjugated
with others or the rules of common
experience. She stated that when the
book was published, people started
calling and the pain was felt by the
whole family. She stated that Kate was
very down and that she was not able to
deal with daily life, that she ran long
distances and prayed every day. She
stated that they were sad over being
made arguidos, but that with the
publication of the book it was
different, that they “dehumanized
themselves”. She stated that the twins
started school in August, three and a
half years ago, aged 5.
(x) Henrique Romão da Silva Leite
Machado – journalist at “Correio da
Manhã” since 2005, he was the author of
the interview that is mentioned in the
lawsuit, confirmed that the statements
attributed to defendant Gonçalo Amaral
in said interview belong to the latter,
and were recorded.
(xi) Eduardo José Campos Dâmaso – Joint
director of the same newspaper,
confirmed the authenticity of the
statements that are attributed to the
defendant, stating that no complaint was
made about a possible lack of rigor. He
denied the veracity of the fact in
article 22 and he confirmed the matter
of article 24.
(xii) Ricardo Manuel Gonçalves Paiva –
Defendant Gonçalo Amaral’s colleague and
friend, he participated in the criminal
investigation from the beginning until
the archiving. He confirmed the note to
the Media that is asked about in article
20 and stated that until this date the
inquiry has not been reopened. He stated
that the child’s death was a hypothesis
in the investigation and that long after
the book’s publication a “work group”
was created to review the inquiry and to
accompany solicitations from the United
Kingdom’s police.
(xiii) Luís António Trindade Nunes das
Neves – Director of a national unit at
the Polícia Judiciária (specialised in
crimes of sequestration, abduction and
hostage making), he is also a friend of
defendant Gonçalo Amaral. He
participated in the investigation and
stated that after the archiving,
information about the disappearance
continued to be collected, having stated
that the first time that the hypothesis
of death was discussed it was by the
parents, who suggested the coming of a
South African expert who was equipped
with a machine to search for buried
bodies.
(xiv) Mário Rui da Silva Sena Lopes – He
was editing director of defendant Guerra
e Paz and he is defendant Gonçalo
Amaral’s literary agent. He stated that
the cover sales price of the book, VAT
included, was 13,30 euro and that the
book was not sold in Brazil. He stated
that part of the books were sold on
consignment and part were sold firmly
with a right to return. He confirmed the
issue of article 24.
(xv) Luís Vitorino Torre do Valle Froes
– Retired, he was general director of VC
Multimedia. He stated that the DVD was
edited by that company which only sold
it to “Correio da Manhã”, and that
newspaper then sold it to the public. He
stated that leftover copies were
destroyed, having been confronted with
documents on pages 916 and 1047 of the
injunction and documents on pages 1841
to 1843, which he explained. He stated
that neither VC firm (Multimedia or
Filmes) was responsible for placing the
documentary on the internet.
(xvi) António Paulo Antunes dos Santos –
general director of an association that
defends audiovisual works, he stated
that a complaint was made over the
placing of the documentary on the
internet.
Particularly and as far as the positive
conviction is concerned, the following
evidence was especially valued, in order
of replies:
Article 1 – The conviction resulted from
the depositions by Henrique Romão da
Silva Leite Machado and Eduardo José
Campos Dâmaso and there is no reason to
doubt them.
Article 2 – The price in question is the
one that is mentioned in the article in
newspaper “24 Horas” that was copied on
page 116. The proven price is the one
that results from information given by
defendant Guerra e Paz itself, upon
request from the authors, on page 1368,
with more rigour and which matches
information from one of the main outlets
– FNAC – on pages 1377 and 1440.
Articles 3, 4 and 7 – Information given
by the Tax Authority on page 2095 was
considered, which conveys an amount that
is higher than the summary of receipts
appended to the process and that in
comparison deserves more credibility.
Article 6 – The conjunction of documents
from the injunction, pages 1047 to 1053
(particularly clause 3, number 1 of that
contract) with the contents of
information filed by Presselivre, S.A on
page 1047 of the main process was taken
into consideration.
Article 8 – The conviction resulted from
the conjugation of the contract
reproduced on pages 923 and 924 of the
injunction with the deposition by
witness Luís Vitorino Torre do Valle
Froes.
Article 10 – The fact is sufficiently
described in the information that was
given by Marktest Audimetria, S.A, and
was also mentioned in the news from
pages 130 and 132 of the injunction.
Article 13 – The reply to the matter of
articles 12 and 13 cannot ignore the
assertion (which we consider elementary
from the rules of common experience)
that more than any theory or opinion
about the causes of the disappearance of
Madeleine Beth MacCann, it is the fact
of her disappearance that dominates, in
negative effects, the
emotional/psychological state of her
parents. That negative emotional state
pre-exists the book, the documentary and
the interview at stake in this lawsuit
and should not be confounded with the
specific psychological consequences of
those specific events. Therefore, if it
is not credible, within that wider frame
(nor was it proved) that any state of
destruction (v.g emotional) of the
couple was caused by the book, by the
documentary or by the interview, it
cannot either, under the light of a
reasonable reading of the witness
statements and the rules of life
experience, to dismiss those events as
completely neutral or innocuous.
Departing from those same rules of
common experience and taking into
consideration the significance of the
thesis that was expended in the book, in
the documentary and in the interview,
the diffusion that it was subject to and
the depositions by Susan Hubbard, Alan
Pike and Brigid Patricia Cameron, as
well as their own statements, we deem it
safe to state, as is done in the reply,
that authors Kate MacCann felt, as a
consequence of said events, anger,
despair and anguish. It is further
supported by evidence that they
experienced preoccupation (because of
fearing, as reported by several
witnesses, that the thesis in the book
might endanger the efforts to find their
daughter) and that they suffered from
insomnia and lack of appetite, as
described in the witnesses’ statements.
Article 14 – It is not possible to state
what the majority of people who read or
viewed defendant’s Gonçalo Amaral’s
thesis about the disappearance. That
thesis does not include, it is believed,
stating that Kate and Gerald MacCann
were “responsible for their daughter’s
death” but rather that they were
responsible for hiding her cadaver. The
claimants themselves contradicted the
shame that is asked in the question,
with Kate MacCann stating that she did
not know if shame was the right word.
That sentiment of shame does also not
fit the strong personality that those
close to them describe. Once again,
using common experience allows us to
state that they feel ill being for being
seen as the authors of the concealment
of their daughter’s body and the
simulation of her abduction.
Article 15 – The fact also belongs to
common experience and was widely
corroborated by the testimony of David
Martin Trickey.
Article 17 – The depositions of the
latter and of the children’s aunt,
Brigid Cameron, were taken into
consideration.
Article 18 – The reply results from the
conjugation of the information on page
1843 with the deposition by Luis
Vitorino Torre do Valle Froes.
Article 19 – The fact was extracted from
information supplied by the Polícia
Judiciária on page 1046.
Article 20 – One considered the contents
of the “Nota para a Comunicação Social”
on page 536.
Article 23 – One considered the
deposition by Mário Rui da Silva Sena
Lopes.
Article 24 – The media diffusion of the
case is a noted fact and is patent in
various newspaper excerpts, blogs and
sites that have been appended to the
process. The publication of the books
was confirmed, namely by Eduardo José
Campos Dâmaso and Mário Rui da Silva
Sena Lopes.
Article 25 – The fact was confirmed by
himself and is documented in the
process.
Articles 27 and 28 – The answer to the
question faces, firstly, the problem of
dichotomy between “facts that have been
ascertained in the inquiry” and “facts
that are equally part of the inquiry”.
If one understood as facts that have
been ascertained in the investigation
those that, with rigour and according to
procedural-penal dogmatism, resulted
from the investigation, it is believed
that only one would deserve that
qualification – the disappearance of
Madeleine MacCann. Everything that is
part of the investigation, apart from
that fact, is indicia, means of
evidence, means of obtaining evidence
and theses or hypotheses of fact, which
is normal for an inquiry that has been
archived due to a lack of evidence. Thus
it is understood that, when one places
side by side “facts that have been
ascertained in the inquiry” and those
that “are part of the inquiry” one is
referring to the means of obtaining
evidence, the means of evidence and
indicia that make up the investigation
itself and that are documented in the
inquiry. Thus, from the reading of the
book and the viewing of the documentary
it is concluded that defendant Gonçalo
Amaral uses, in his affirmations, mostly
facts that did indeed take place and are
documented in the inquiry (in the
version that is available in this
process). Some of the facts that were
used are not complete (for example, from
the report about Martin Smith’s
deposition – in the inquiry, page 1606
of Volume 6) – the part where the
witness states that the person that he
saw carrying a child in his arms did not
do it “in a comfortable manner, showing
a lack of habitude”) and others that are
contained in the book and in the
documentary have not been included in
the inquiry (v.g. the instructions that
he gave to the picket when he heard
about the disappearance – page 37 of the
book; the statement attributed to the
parents that the apartment showed
break-in signs – page 44 of the book;
Kate MacCann’s discomfort over the speed
of the car – page 55 of the book; the
hypothesis of a reconstruction of events
discussed in mid-May – page 94 of the
book; the “informal” identification of
Robert Murat by Jane Tanner – page 108).
Article 29 – The reply is based on the
conjugation of documents on pages 1819
to 1840 of the process.
Article 30 – Based on the contract that
is reproduced on pages 916 to 922 of the
injunction.
Article 31 – The statement by witness
Luís Vitorino Torre do Valle Froes was
taken into account, as no evidence was
produced to contradict it.
Articles 32 to 34 – Based on the
contract that is reproduced on pages
1047 to 1053 of the injunction and on
the aforementioned statement. The
invoices reproduced on pages 1841 and
1842 of the process were also taken into
consideration.
Article 35 – The fact is corroborated by
the contents of the contract celebrated
with Presselivre and also resulted from
witness statements.
Article 36 – The depositions by Luis
Vitorino Torre do Valle Froes and
António Paulo Antunes dos Santos are
considered, the fact being in agreement
with common experience.
Article 37 – The fact belongs to common
experience.
The negative replies and the
non-demonstrated part of the restrictive
replies result from an insufficiency of
evidence produced for a safe conviction
or from the circumstance that the
related facts have been rebutted,
considering the aforementioned reasons
and those that are described below:
a) Article 5 – Apart from what results
from page 253 of the injunction about
publicity, on a Brazilian internet
“site”, about the book, under the item
“imported books”, the fact was not
proved and witness Mário Rui da Silva
Sena Lopes denied that the defendant
sold the book in Brazil.
b) Article 9 – The fact was not proved
and denied by witness Luis Vitorino
Torre do Valle Froes.
c) Article 11 – The statement is denied
by the information supplied by the
Polícia Judiciária on pages 1116 and
1292, while it tries to attribute an
action to the criminal police force that
is contrary to the principle of
officiality of the criminal process.
d) Article 12 – It was not proved that
authors Kate and Gerald MacCann are
destroyed under a moral, social and
ethical point of view. From the family
point of view the evidence showed a
successful effort of cohesion and
assistance (as seen in Brigid Cameron’s
statement). From the
sentimental/emotional point of view it
is not credible that the consequences of
the facts in this process reach the
point of destruction or that they reach
far beyond the pain that was provoked by
the disappearance of the authors’
daughter.
e) Article 16 – It is not safe, from the
available evidence, to discern what
within the alleged facts is a
consequence of Madeleine’s disappearance
and what is an effect of the
book/documentary/interview.
f) Article 21 – No documentary evidence
was given, by a certificate from the
criminal process, that revealed the
veracity of the fact.
g) Article 22 – The affirmation was
profusely denied by evidence.
Lisbon, January 21, 2015
------------
translation ends here
------------
Note:
The above translated text is based on
the following affirmations that the
civil court set out to prove – or
disprove.
Is it proven that: 1. Gonçalo Amaral
made the statements that are attributed
to him under item Z)*?
*(item Z is the Correio da Manhã
interview)
2. The cover price of the book “Maddie,
A Verdade da Mentira” in Portugal is €
13.80, including VAT?
3. Defendant Gonçalo Amaral has earned
from the sale of the book “Maddie, A
Verdade da Mentira” an amount that is
not less than € 621.000,00?
4. Defendant Gonçalo Amaral has earned
from the sale of editions in foreign
languages of the book an amount that is
not less than € 498.750,00?
5. The book was sold in Brazil by
defendant “Guerra e Paz, Editores,
S.A.”?
6. The DVD has a cover price of € 6,00?
7. Defendant Gonçalo Amaral has earned
from the sale of the DVD an amount that
is not less than € 112.500,00?
8. The DVD that is mentioned under AN)
has been edited and the edited copies
have been sold by defendant “V.C. –
Valentim de Carvalho – Filmes,
Audiovisuais, S.A.”?
9. Defendant “V.C. – Valentim de
Carvalho – Filmes, Audiovisuais, S.A.”?
has already made the DVD, in an English
version, available for immediate
delivery via internet order?
10. At least two million and two hundred
thousand people have watched the
programme that was broadcast on
13.4.2009?
11. Because of the statements made by
defendant Gonçalo Amaral in the book, in
the documentary and in the interview to
Correio da Manhã, the Polícia Judiciária
stopped collecting information and
investigating the disappearance of
Madeleine MacCann?
12. Because of the statements made by
defendant Gonçalo Amaral in the book, in
the documentary and in the interview to
Correio da Manhã, authors Kate MacCann
and Gerald MacCann are completely
destroyed, from a moral, social,
ethical, sentimental, family point of
view, much beyond the pain that their
daughter’s absence causes them?
13. Because of the statements made by
defendant Gonçalo Amaral in the book, in
the documentary and in the interview to
Correio da Manhã, authors Kate MacCann
and Gerald MacCann suffer permanent
anguish, insomnia, lack of appetite,
anxiety and irritability, preoccupation
and indefinable fear?
14. Authors Kate MacCann and Gerald
MacCann feel a deep shame and an
indescribable ill-being because they are
considered, by most people who know the
theories of defendant Gonçalo Amaral, as
having responsibility in the death of
their daughter, being so cowardly that
they have hidden her cadaver, simulating
abduction, all of this to avoid criminal
accusations?
15. Authors Kate MacCann and Gerald
MacCann live under enormous daily
pressure due to the need to keep their
younger children away from the knowledge
of defendant Gonçalo Amaral’s opinions
about their moral integrity?
16. Namely because of defendant Gonçalo
Amaral’s statements in the book, in the
documentary and in the interview to
Correio da Manhã, author Kate MacCann is
immerged in a deep and serious
depression, which has already made her
state publicly “I wish I was in a coma,
to relieve the pain”?
17. Sean and Amelie MacCann will soon
become aware of the conclusions that are
mentioned in J), because they will go to
school?
18. 63.369 copies of the DVD were not
sold, having been destroyed afterwards?
19. Defendant Gonçalo Amaral has gone
into retirement from the Polícia
Judiciária on 1.6.2008?
20. On 22.6.2008, the Attorney General’s
Office published a note for the media,
announcing the archiving of the inquiry,
awaiting better evidence?
21. The criminal inquiry was reopened
due to the appearance of new evidence?
22. The attention of the media and of
people in general diminished when
defendant Gonçalo Amaral’s book was
published?
23. The sale of the books was made on
consignment, being subject to devolution
for various reasons, like handling,
manufacturing defects or their
non-transaction?
24. The so-called “Maddie Case” has been
profoundly treated within the Portuguese
and foreign society, whether by the
media, or through books, like those
authored by Paulo Pereira Cristóvão,
Manuel Catarino and Hernâni Carvalho?
25. The so-called “Maddie Case” was
commented upon by Dr. Francisco Moita
Flores, former inspector, writer,
criminalist and commentator, in various
media?
26. Have authors Kate MacCann and Gerald
MacCann hired communication firms and
spokespeople through the Madeleine Fund?
27. Are the facts that are reported by
defendant Gonçalo Amaral in the book and
in the aforementioned interviews, like
he himself writes and said, facts that
were established during the inquiry?
28. Does the documentary only contain
facts that are also in the inquiry
files?
29. The social capital of defendant
“V.C. – Valentim de Carvalho – Filmes,
Audiovisuais, S.A.” is held, in 60%, by
the firm “Estúdios Valentim de Carvalho,
Gravações e Audiovisuais, S.A.” and, in
40%, by the Fundo de Investimento para o
Cinema e o Audiovisual?
30. Has defendant “V.C. – Valentim de
Carvalho – Filmes, Audiovisuais, S.A.”
ceded the rights to sell, distribute,
exhibit and broadcast all of the
cinematographic and audiovisual work
that it creates, develops and produces
to the firm “Valentim de Carvalho
Multimédia, S.A.”?
31. Until today, has the documentary
been reproduced only once to be edited,
published and sold in Portugal under
video format, in this case a DVD?
32. The reproduction and edition of the
documentary in video format have been
authorised by “Valentim de Carvalho
Multimédia, S.A.” to firm “Presslivre,
Imprensa Livre, S.A.”, the owner of the
Correio da Manhã newspaper, according to
a contract between both?
33. Under which [contract], the DVD, its
covers and packages would be, as they
were, manufactured on behalf of, under
order of and under the responsibility of
Presslivre, in order to be distributed
and sold together with newspaper Correio
da Manhã?
34. And the entire process of
registering and classifying the video
edition (DVD) of the documentary with
ICAG would be, as it was, developed by
Valentim de Carvalho Multimédia, a
process whose cost would be carried by
Presslivre, as it did?
35. The distribution for sale took place
in conjunction with the distribution for
sale of the newspaper Correio da Manhã’s
edition of April 24, 2009?
36. The documentary was reproduced, and
even subtitled in the English language,
by third parties that published it on
the internet, without permission and
against the will of the defendant “V.C.
– Valentim de Carvalho – Filmes,
Audiovisuais, S.A.”?
37. That illicit diffusion damages not
only the rights that are held by
defendant “V.C. – Valentim de Carvalho –
Filmes, Audiovisuais, S.A.” over the
documentary, but also its commercial
exploration, because any citizen can
watch the documentary, also only one
“click” away? |
