Libel trial McCann v Gonçalo Amaral - Day 6
Note: This witness is the last witness of the
accusation strictly speaking, unless the Judge
agrees to Mr Gerry McCann taking the stand in
as it happened...
11:30 am) Henrique Machado – Staff
reporter with the Portuguese Morning Mail (Correio
da Manhã) newspaper in Lisbon since 2005. He
is not a freelance journalist.
asks him if he knows why he has been asked to
– I think I'm here because I interviewed Mr
Amaral in June 2008, before his book was
published. I was with Eduardo Dâmaso for this
asks in what circumstances this interview
– It was an initiative of the Correio da
Manha. At the time Gonçalo Amaral had
already resigned and had left the Polícia
asks whether the witness knew that Gonçalo
Amaral had a thesis about the case.
– Yes. He says that this understanding was
induced by the orientation of the investigation.
observes that the process had evolved (after GA
says it's normal that Gonçalo Amaral had a
remarks that it is based on Dr Amaral’s own
experiences as Coordinator and not on the
investigation as a whole. The investigation went
on (after GA's dismissal). How could he know
what was happening?
says he knew the McCanns were arguidos,
that what was happening was public knowledge. He
says he never had any contact with Gonçalo
Amaral (before the interview).
tells him he can sit down.
family lawyer, Isabel Duarte, is the first to
question the witness.
ID asks the
witness whether he knows if Eduardo Dâmaso had
contacts with Gonçalo Amaral.
argues that the journalists' sources are
overrules the question.
ID – Do you
know that Mr Amaral was dismissed from the case?
Oliveira, GA's lawyer, protests and the Judge
ID – Do you
know why he was dismissed?
her question about what led to the dismissal is
important, but the Judge overrules.
protesting and ID raises her voice.
overrules SO, but ID interrupts the Judge saying
that it was GA who made affirmations...
interrupts reminding that she is the one who
directs the session, she asks ID to please not
ID wants to
show a document to the witness, a newspaper (a
copy of the Correio da Manha), in order to
confirm that they will speak of the same
this request by saying to the Judge that she
wonders if there are things in the interview
that weren't actually said by Gonçalo Amaral or
if GA did say all that's there.
asks the witness to read the article.
asks the witness if the interview was taped.
answers that interviews are normally
tape-recorded in order to provide an accurate
Carvalho (VC) (lawyer for the documentary maker)
intervenes to ask whether the transcript is
complete or partial or if it was adapted for
Of necessity it had to be adapted to the
allotted space in the newspaper.
VC – Are the
titles (means the title of the article) the
responsibility of the newspaper or did Gonçalo
says GA didn't participate, all titles are
the responsibility of the newspaper.
reading an extract of the interview that
mentions the freeze and transport topic and asks
if it suffered journalistic treatment.
– In what way? Then adds that sometimes they
have to suppress parts of an interview, but they
always respect what is said.
asks whether this applies to all interviews.
says that with so much time passing he can't
answer. He said they were careful to keep a
VC quotes a
sentence on condensation and asks whether it had
says that things were said that weren't
published, but what is published attributed to
GA is accurate. He says that it sometimes
happens that a 40-minute speech has to be
shortened, but he doesn't cut it in the middle
of a sentence. The interviewee might have said
things that the journalist considers not
relevant and therefore doesn't publish.
says the witness may go.
to the Clerk of the Court the proceedings
concerning Mrs Healy. She states that, after the
Court session was adjourned for reasons
independent of the Judge's will, she had given
up calling this witness. However she then
thought the witness had important things to
tell, but she forgot to reapply for this witness
to be called. She says she asked the witness to
return from the UK hoping that the Court would
allow her to testify.
(Guerra&Paz's lawyer) dictates her position, the
rules have to be respected.
lawyer) dictates that it seems the witness
wasn't so important or significant evidence to
report since her colleague opted first to give
her up. He observes that it is not a case where,
in the course of the trial, an unexpected
witness pops up with crucial facts to reveal.
remarks that on the 24th of September 2013, Dra
Duarte declared that she relinquished all
additional witnesses except for Mrs Cameron. She
says it's possible to forfeit a witness at any
time, but the Court may judge differently and
notify the witness if reasons exist to presume
that witness has knowledge of important facts
for a forthright discussion of the available
She adds that
the production of testimony evidence up until
now does not lead the Court to believe that the
witness Susan Healy's knowledge is relevant to
the discussion about the case considering her
relationship with Kate McCann and the fact that
the lawyer for the plaintiffs had officially
given her up. She therefore doesn't authorize
the witness to take the stand.
End of session