Attic Shelf: October 2013

Friday 11 October 2013

McCann v Amaral (08 Oct 2013) Manuel Catarino Transcript

Libel Trial Day 7
Manuel Catarino
(Editor in Chief, Correio da Manhã)

By Anne Guedes of the UK Justice Forum

Libel trial McCann v Gonçalo Amaral - Day 7 Witness No 4

The testimony as it happened...

(08.10.2013, 2:25pm) Manuel Catarino is Editor in Chief of the Portuguese daily, the Morning Mail (Correio da Manhã) and a journalist familiar with criminal processes. He authored "A culpa dos McCann” ("The guilt of the McCanns") with a preface by Francisco Moita Flores, that contains an interview by the criminologist José Manuel Anes, who reviewed the PJ investigation.

The Judge asks whether the witness knows what this trial is about.
MC replies that he was involved in various journalistic works on this issue.

The Judge asks him when.
MC in 2008.

The Judge asks if the witness' relations with Gonçalo Amaral are only professional or if they are friends.
MC says they are professional, but he knows Gonçalo Amaral personally.

The Judge asks whether MC knows the McCanns.
MC says "no".

1) Defence lawyers

a)Gonçalo Amaral's lawyer, Dr Santos de Oliveira, is the first to question the witness.

SO – As a journalist, you will have followed this Madeleine McCann process. When?
MC From Day One.

SO – How were you aware of the criminal process when the McCanns were made arguidos?
MC explains his knowledge originated in the news Reports, he didn't receive information directly, he coordinated the work of the journalists and reviewed the information they sent him.

SO – Have you got the DVD (provided by the Public Ministry)?
MC says "yes".

SO – Have you read GA's book?
MC says he did.

SO – Was there a decrease in interest following the publication of the book?
MC thinks that the attention was greater when the McCanns were in the Algarve.

SO – But was there a decrease because of the book?
MC says he can't answer that.

SO – As a redaction coordinator, have you instructed not to publish more on this case because the news had lost interest?
MC No, a newspaper doesn't abandon cases. What counts are relevant points and this is decided every single day.

SO – Are you aware of other books on this case?
MC says that the Madeleine McCann mystery raised curiosity. The interest for the story was great, that is why so many books were published.

SO – Since you saw the AG Final Report and you read the book, did you find that content in the book included revelations?
MC remembers that the book was released after the Final Report and that the revelations weren’t really unique.

SO – Then the book doesn't bring revelations?
MC agrees.

b) TVI's lawyer, Dr Miguel Coroadinha.

TVI – Haven't you yourself written a book on this case?
MC says he did.

TVI – When was it published?
MC says it was at the end of 2008, beginning of 2009.
(Note: the book was published on the 6th December 2007).

TVI wants to know what the book is about...

The Judge overrules and says the book will be included within the trial files.

TVI – What does the book consist of?
MC says the book has two parts. One is on the news published by the newspapers and the other consists of analyses by experts on the various aspects of the criminal investigation.

TVI – How many newspapers were taken into consideration?
MC says the main newspaper was the Correio da Manhã. The first part of the book is based upon facts described in its articles.

TVI – You said that no newspaper ceases abruptly to mention any issue?
MC – Yes, and any published book is news.

TVI – But isn't there a first phase where a lot of attention is given to a case and then isn't it normal that the interest subsides?
MC In the case of Joana Cipriano, there was a beginning and there was an end. The case of Madeleine McCann is a crime without punishment, it is an open narrative.

TVI – A book cannot suppress this situation?
MC Logically no.

2) McCann lawyer, Dr Ricardo Alfonso.

RA asks why Manuel Catarino described this case as a crime without punishment.
MC A child disappeared, that is a crime...

TVI intervenes – What is the crime?

RA – You said that the attention didn't decrease when the book was published. Do you remember that the Correio da Manhã published an interview with Gonçalo Amaral?
MC says "yes".

RA – When?
MC says it was just before the book was launched.

RA – Did the Correio da Manhã consider it was in the public interest to publish this kind of stuff?
MC says "yes".

Nothing more was said.

Evidence ends.

Previous Transcripts:

Day 1 - 12th September 2013
Witness 1 Susan Hubbard (friend of Mrs McCann)
Witness 2, Emma Loach (Documentary film maker)
Witness 3, David Edgar (Private Investigator for the McCanns)

Day 2 - 13th September 2013
Witness 1, David Trickey (Psychologist)
Witness 2, Angus McBride (Lawyer)

Day 3 - 19th September 2013
Witness 1, Alan Pike (Trauma Consultant)
Witness 2, João Melchior Gomes (Former Deputy Attorney General)
Witness 3, Alípio Ribeiro (Former National director of the Polícia Judiciária)
Witness 4, Cláudia Nogueira (Media Consultant)

Day 4 – 20 September 2013
Witness 1, Michael Wright (Administrator) – his wife is Kate McCann's cousin.
Witness 2, Maria Stilwell (Writer and Newspaper Editor)

Day 5 – 27 September 2013
Postponed
Explanation of Postponement

Day 6 - 2nd October 2013
Witness 1, Patricia Cameron - Gerry McCann's sister (Nurse)
Witness 2, Henrique Machado (Reporter for Correio da Manhã newspaper)
Witness 3, Eduardo Dâmaso (Reporter for Correio da Manhã newspaper)

Day 7 - 8th October 2013
Witness 1, Ricardo Paiva (Police Inspector)
Witness 2, Victor Tavares de Almeida (Police Chief Inspector)
Witness 3, Luis Neves (Director National anti Terrorism Unit)

McCann v Amaral (08 Oct 2013) Luis Neves Transcript

Libel Trial Day 7
Luis Neves
(Director National anti Terrorism Unit)

By Anne Guedes of the UK Justice Forum

Libel trial McCann v Gonçalo Amaral - Day 7 Witness No 3

The testimony as it happened...

(08.10.2013, 12:01pm) Luis Neves, former Coordinator of the DCCB (Direcção Central de Combate ao Banditismo), now directs the UNCT (Unidade Nacional de Combate ao Terrorismo), the PJ unit that fights violent criminality.

The Judge asks the witness if he intervened in the criminal process related to Madeleine McCann's disappearance.

LN says he did, but not directly. He explains that, after some days, the then National Director of the PJ, Alipio Ribeiro, asked him to send officers of his unit who were specialised in cases of abduction and hostage. He adds that his team had collaborated in the Joana Cipriano murder case.

The Judge – What do you mean by "indirectly"?
LN says that, though he went to the Algarve a few times to meet Guilhermino Encarnação, then Director of the PJ in Faro, and Gonçalo Amaral, the operations were performed by Portimão police officers under the direction of his team.

The Judge asks if the witness' relations with Gonçalo Amaral are only professional or if there is a personal relationship.
LN says there's friendship between them.

The Judge asks if the witness had a relationship with the McCanns.
LN remembers he saw them at a meeting organized by Guilhermino Encarnação in the British Consulate in Portimão concerning diligences to perform on sightings.

The Judge – Have you read the book?
LN says he didn't read it completely. Somebody showed the book to him and he read a few sections, just before the injunction trial.

The Judge - Have you watched the documentary?
LN says "no".

He swears to tell the truth.

1) Defence lawyers

This witness is common to Defence lawyers acting on behalf of both Guerra & Paz and Gonçalo Amaral, the question being who will start.

a) Gonçalo Amaral’s lawyer, Dr Santos de Oliveira, is the first to question the witness.

SO – Do you have any knowledge of the AG Final Report concerning this case?
LN says "yes".

SO – Do you know that the PJ went on gathering information after the case was shelved?
LN says he is aware of that.

SO – Was there some investigation?
LN says if there was he didn't take part in it.

SO – But didn't you receive Reports?
LN says "no", but as he had contacts with people in charge of the operations, he was informed about them.

SO – After the publication of GA's book, was there a breach in the flow of information?
LN presumes that there wasn't, but points out that he doesn't know. He says that, independently of the shelving of any criminal process, the PJ continue to work. They don't perform formal (official) operations but correlate and investigate any new information that is brought to them.

SO – What do you know about the Scotland Yard rogatory letter?
LN says he has no knowledge of its content.

SO – From what you read of the book, would you say it constitutes a revelation?
LN There's nothing new in this book.

SO – What about the conclusions?
LN says he only remembers clearly one or two chapters, about dogs and about an Irish family. He says that anybody who at the time was aware of this case knew all that was in this book. He explains that the Public Ministry had the files digitalised in order to make them available.

SO – Have you any knowledge about how the "death" theory came about?
LN says there was no such theory in the beginning; he even remembers that Guilhermino Encarnação talked of abduction. But with time this idea had to be contemplated. He says that Madeleine's parents were the first to talk of death. It occurred in the British Consulate when the parents wanted a South African ex-policeman to come with a machine supposed to find bodies from hair samples (Note: Matter Orientation System or MOS).

He remembers there were a lot of problems at the customs because of this device. The witness says that later, the British police officers who were collaborating in Portimão started speaking of special dogs that could discover bodies in a field. He says that it is where the initiative of sending for the dogs originated. Through the help of the dogs the investigation evolved. Death appeared a serious possibility. It led to the examination of telecommunications. From the end of 2007 on, the "death" theory became a distinct possibility.

SO – Was the investigation limited to the facts that are in the book?
LN Independently of the main theory, all lines of inquiry kept on being investigated. The witness adds that the dogs (Eddie and Keela) resolved many cases, they arrived with an impressive curriculum vitae and a lot of certificates that of course carried a certain amount of prestige.

b) G&P's lawyer, Dra Fatima Esteves.

GP – Your Unit is specialised in abductions. Concerning the reopening of the investigation...

The Judge overrules the question.

GP – When did you read the book?
LN says he read it before the judgement of the providência cautelar ("injunction", in January 2010), he read extracts of it.

GP – Were the facts in the book different from the facts that are in the criminal process Report?
LN says he remembers the facts in the book are those of the investigation.

GP – Do you know if the PJ continued to investigate?
LN says they didn't officially investigate. He adds that the police must take seriously and pursue all information that comes to them regardless.

d) TVI's lawyer, Dr. Miguel Coroadinha.

TVI – What about the South African called Krügel, who suggested he be sent for?
LN The parents did, particularly the mother, she made much pressure for it to happen.

TVI – Was the machine intended to find bodies or living people?
LN Bodies. It wasn't supposed to reveal the location of living people.

TVI – Then the parents considered death...

The Judge overrules.

LN spontaneously says it was very complicated to have the equipment pass the border.

TVI – When was it? One, two months later?
LN thinks it was in July 2007.

TVI – Was there a reaction by the British after those operations?
LN says he wasn't present during the Krügel diligence, but he was told how it occurred. He describes the methodology.

Then the witness mentions that some sticks were inserted into the ground in order to help the dogs find an eventually buried corpse.

TVI – Was that theory promoted among all others?
LN says he didn't say so and observes that Guilhermino Encarnação spoke of abduction in spite of having absolutely nothing that could substantiate it. He insists that, as in the Joana Cipriano case previously investigated, all hypotheses must always be on the table.

2) The McCann’s substitute lawyer, Dr Ricardo Afonso.

RA – You spoke of a suggestion to send for dogs, is it in the process?
LN says he doesn't know if there is a Report on that. He knows that the proposal by the British police wasn't easy to accept because it involved high costs and there was no precedent in Portugal to work with this type of specialised dog. He remembers that, just after the operations with the dogs, he spoke to two British officials in Lisbon to whom he asked what use the English Courts made of the dogs' alerts.

RA – Then?
LN I was told they only perform a secondary part, but in many different cases they had helped to reach the truth.

And then nothing more was said.

Evidence ends.

McCann v Amaral (08 Oct 2013) Victor Tavares de Almeida Transcript

Libel Trial Day 7
Victor Tavares de Almeida
(Police Chief Inspector)

By Anne Guedes of the UK Justice Forum

Libel trial McCann v Gonçalo Amaral - Day 7 Witness No 2

(08.10.2013, 11:45am). There are some video-link connection problems, a pause is decided. Once Victor Tavares de Almeida appears on the screen, the lawyers return to the Court and the trial commences at 11:55am.

The Judge asks the witness if he is a Chief Inspector.

TA says he is.

The Judge asks where he works and for how long he has been there.

TA says he has worked in the DIC (Department of Criminal Investigation) at Portimão since January 2007.

The Judge presents the reason for this trial and asks if the witness is aware of it.

TA says he knows exactly.

The Judge asks if the witness participated in the investigation.

TA says he started to work on the case two days after the disappearance of Madeleine McCann until the end of September 2007.

The Judge – Hierarchically, were you subordinated to Gonçalo Amaral? TA said that Gonçalo Amaral was the Coordinator and he was under him.

The Judge – Were you Number 2?

TA says it can be said so.

The Judge asks whether, independently of professional ties, is there a personal friendship between him and Gonçalo Amaral.

TA said that is correct.

The Judge wants to know if the relationship with the McCanns was only professional.

TA says the unique relationship he had was exactly that, professional.

The Judge asks the witness if he has read GA's book.

TA says he only read the final part.

The Judge asks if he watched the documentary produced by Valentim de Carvalho.

TA says he didn't.

Witness says he will answer with honesty.

Guerra & Paz's lawyer's is the first to question the witness.

GP – You exercised your functions in the Madeleine McCann investigation until September 2007...

TA takes advantage of a pause – "why?"

GP – No, I just wanted to confirm this.

TA confirms.

GP – Do you have any knowledge of a note emitted by the media because of the shelving of the process?

TA doesn't know to what note the lawyer refers (see below*)

Then all the lawyers, one by one, state that they don't have any questions for the witness since he didn't read the book nor watched the documentary.

Evidence ends.

* The note is an important feature of this case, it considers and lists the 3 possible methods whereby the case can be reopened following the shelving Report by the Public Ministry.

They are as follows:-

1) A hierarchically superior magistrate can disagree with the shelving and order an instruction inquiry.

2) Any of the arguidos can request an instruction inquiry. They would have participated in the diligences, asked for new operations and finally had been part of a final contradictory debate.

3) Anyone who has a new and relevant piece of evidence can request the reopening of the process.

The question of the note to the media, asked of Eduardo Dâmaso by the Defence, isn't mentioned in the Dâmaso statement (he didn't know what it was). Since it is again asked of another witness, it is reproduced below in both Portuguese and English:

NOTA PARA A COMUNICAÇÃO SOCIAL

Por despacho com data de hoje (21.07.2008) proferido pelos dois magistrados do Ministério Público competentes para o caso, foi determinado o arquivamento do inquérito relativo ao desaparecimento da menor Madeleine McCann, por não se terem obtido provas da prática de qualquer crime por parte dos arguidos.

NOTE TO THE MEDIA

By order dated today (21.07.2008) emitted by the two prosecutors in charge of the case, we determined the shelving of the investigation concerning the disappearance of the minor Madeleine McCann having failed to obtain any evidence of the practice of any crime by the arguidos.

Cessa assim a condição de arguido de Robert James Queriol Evelegh Murat, Gerald Patrick McCann e Kate Marie Healy, declarando-se extinctas as medidas de coacção impostas aos mesmos.

Ceases then the arguido status of defendant Robert James Queriol Evelegh Murat, Gerald Patrick McCann and Kate Marie Healy, being declared extinguished the coercive measures imposed on them.

III

Poderão ter lugar a reclamação hierárquica, o pedido de abertura de instrução ou a reabertura do inquérito, requeridos por quem tiver legitimidade para tal.

Can be reopened following a hierarchical complaint, the request for opening an instruction or the reopening of the investigation, required by those who would have legitimacy to do so.

O inquérito poderá vir a ser reaberto por iniciativa do Ministério Público ou a requerimento de algum interessado se surgirem novos elementos de prova que originem diligências sérias, pertinentes e consequentes.

The investigation will be able to be reopened at the initiative of the Public Ministry or on request of any person interested if new evidence arises deserving of serious, relevant and consequential diligences.

Decorridos que sejam os prazos legais, o processo poderá ser consultado por qualquer pessoa que nisso revele interesse legítimo, respeitados que sejam o formalismo e limites impostos por lei.

Lisboa, 21 de Julho de 2008

O Gabinete de Imprensa

Ana Lima

Elapsed since the legal deadlines, the process may be inspected by any person showing legitimate interest, in the respect of the formalism and the limits imposed by the Law.

Lisbon, 21 July 2008

O Gabinete de Imprensa

Ana Lima

Note from John (Senior Editor of UK Justice Forum):

"A special feature of this Report is the reference to a 'note' which relates the conditions on which the case has been shelved.

It should be noted that any of the arguidos have the right to ask that the case be reopened at any time."

Thursday 10 October 2013

McCann v Amaral (08 Oct 2013) Ricardo Paiva Transcript

Libel Trial Day 7
Ricardo Paiva
(Police Inspector)

By Anne Guedes of the UK Justice Forum

Libel trial McCann v Gonçalo Amaral - Day 7 Witness No1

(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. Link to Expresso article in English> http://www.mccannfiles.com/id163.html

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 daughter.

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 rejected.

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 Gonçalo Amaral.
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 November 2012.

The Judge asks when he participated in the investigation.
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.

1) Defence lawyers
a) Guerra & Paz's lawyer, Dra Fátima Esteves, is the first to question the witness.

GP – Considering the investigation, can you affirm whether, because of the book, the PJ stopped collecting information?
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 published?
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 Court.

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 the files.

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 insignificant...

The Judge overrules.

SO – What about the possibility that the child had died?
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 was published?
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 information flow.

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 information?
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 question.
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 process.

VC - Only on facts?
RP – Yes, facts complemented by an opinion about them.

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 documentary)?
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 opinions.

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 difference...

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 process.

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 earlier?
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 conclusion.

The Judge (Maria Emília de Melo e Castro) is now asking

MC – What are the revelations of the book?
RP asks the Judge to explain...

MC interrupts and repeats – What is new in this book?
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 revelations?
TVI's lawyer says "no".
The Judge asks him to kindly not comment.
RP answers that there is nothing new in the book.

MC – Shall I have to conclude then that what's on the cover is misleading publicity?
RP mumbles.

MC – Is there or is there not?
RP mumbles.

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.

Evidence ends. Previous Transcripts:

Day 1 - 12th September 2013
Witness 1 Susan Hubbard (friend of Mrs McCann)
Witness 2, Emma Loach (Documentary film maker)
Witness 3, David Edgar (Private Investigator for the McCanns)

Day 2 - 13th September 2013
Witness 1, David Trickey (Psychologist)
Witness 2, Angus McBride (Lawyer)

Day 3 - 19th September 2013
Witness 1, Alan Pike (Trauma Consultant)
Witness 2, João Melchior Gomes (Former Deputy Attorney General)
Witness 3, Alípio Ribeiro (Former National director of the Polícia Judiciária)
Witness 4, Cláudia Nogueira (Media Consultant)

Day 4 – 20 September 2013
Witness 1, Michael Wright (Administrator) – his wife is Kate McCann's cousin.
Witness 2, Maria Stilwell (Writer and Newspaper Editor)

Day 5 – 27 September 2013
Postponed
Explanation of Postponement

Day 6 - 2nd October 2013
Witness 1, Patricia Cameron - Gerry McCann's sister (Nurse)
Witness 2, Henrique Machado (Reporter for Correio da Manhã newspaper)
Witness 3, Eduardo Dâmaso (Reporter for Correio da Manhã newspaper)

Tuesday 8 October 2013

McCann v Amaral (02 Oct 2013) Eduardo Dâmaso Transcript

Libel Trial Day 6
Eduardo Dâmaso
(Reporter for Correio da Manhã newspaper)

By Anne Guedes of the UK Justice Forum

Libel trial McCann v Gonçalo Amaral - Day 6 Witness No3

The testimony as it happened...

(02.10.2013, 2:50pm) – Eduardo Dâmaso is a witness for both parties. He is a journalist with the Portuguese Morning Mail (Correio da Manhã) based in Lisbon.

The Judge asks what exactly his job with the newspaper was when the interview with Gonçalo Amaral was published. (Note: The article referred to only exists in print, a copy of which has been lodged with the Court).
ED says that at the time the book was published he was Deputy Director with the Correio da Manhã.

The Judge asks whether he knows why he has been called to testify.
ED says he is aware the reason is because he took part, he was present, at the interview of Gonçalo Amaral.

The Judge asks when that was.
ED thinks it was about one year after the disappearance of Madeleine McCann.

The Judge asks how the interview was set up and organized, who contacted who.
ED says that he and Henrique Machado contacted Gonçalo Amaral.

The Judge asks whether he remembers what they told him.
ED says he doesn't remember.

The Judge asks the Clerk of the Court to show the witness the newspaper clipping previously shown to the previous witness.
ED confirms that it is indeed the article mentioned which he has been shown.

The Judge asks whether the witness has any connection with Gonçalo Amaral or with the McCanns.
ED says "no".

The witness first takes the stand on behalf of the Plaintiff.

1) McCann family lawyer, Isabel Duarte, is the first to question the witness.

ID - wants to know whether Gonçalo Amaral's answers were subjected to alteration or does the article represent the transcript of what was actually said.
ED says that sometimes there's a difference and it may happen what is published doesn't reflect rigorously what was said.

ID - asks if it's common practice for journalists to edit their articles.
ED answers that it's an obligation. He explains that an interview represents hours of words whereas the space in the newspaper is limited.

ID - Do you edit?
ED answers "yes".

ID - asks who was in charge of editing this article.
ED says he doesn't remember.

ID - announces that she will read an extract from the interview.

(Note: it hasn't yet been possible to find the original article. This is a Joana Morais' English translation)

“The little girl died in the apartment. Everything is in the book, which is faithful to the investigation until September: it reflects the understanding of the Portuguese and the English police and of the Public Ministry. For all of us, until then, the concealment of the cadaver, the simulation of abduction and the exposure or abandonment were proved.”

ID - asks whether the extract was actually worded as it was reported.
ED Yes.

ID reads another extract:

“And the issue of the bedroom window, where Maddie and her siblings slept, is vital. It leads to simulation. The question is whether or not it was open when Jane says that she saw the man carrying the child. The little girl’s mother, Kate, is the only person that mentions the open window.”

ID - pauses reading...
ED answers that he thinks so.

ID - reads another extract from the interview:

“Due to the type of fluid, we policemen, experts, say that the cadaver was frozen or preserved in the cold and when placed into the car boot, with the heat at that time [of the year], part of the ice melted. On a kerb, for example, something fell from the car boot’s right side, above the wheel.”

ED says that it was what Gonçalo Amaral said.

ID - resumes her reading:

“It may be said that this is speculation, but it’s the only way to explain what happened there.”

ID - asks, if the sentence "the cadaver was frozen" hadn’t existed, would the newspaper have had a banner headline.
ED says "perhaps", he can't say.

2) Defence lawyers.

a) Santos Oliveira (GA lawyer) questions

SO – Did you have any prior knowledge of the case before the interview?
ED answers "yes".

SO – Taking into account the information you had, was the book unexpected?
ED says that after the McCanns were made arguidos the case was widely discussed.

SO - asks whether the information was easily accessed using the internet for the UK media.
ED says he was amazed by the depth and volume of detail given by the UK Press. He says they (the journalists) stayed up very late to see what would be printed in the front pages of the British tabloids the following day.

SO - asks if the content of Gonçalo Amaral’s book was a surprise.
ED says it wasn't because its content was already more or less known. He believes the book didn't reveal anything extraordinary and refers to the fact that the media quickly obtained the DVD of the files.

b) Fatima Esteves (Guerra & Paz's lawyer) questions

GP – Do you remember the date of the shelving of the files?
ED says it was in the summer of 2008.

GP – What happened between the date of Gonçalo Amaral's dismissal and the shelving of the process?
ED says not much really happened. He says there was much debate around the status the McCanns had in the process, but he doesn't remember much more.

GP – Did the interest in the case decrease after the publication of the book?
ED says "no", the interest remained in the media for some time, because it was an extraordinary case. The fact it was very much beyond other cases can be explained by many factors like the circumstances and the worldwide solidarity for the family.

GP – Do you know of other books inspired by this case?
ED says he does.

GP – Are you aware of the comments made by Moita Flores on TV?
ED says "yes", MF made quite a few comments.

c) Santos Oliveira (GA lawyer) questions again the witness, this time for the Defence

SO - What effect did the book's publication have in relation to the investigation, did it hinder it?
ED says that he doesn't think so. He says the book was, in part, Gonçalo Amaral's legitimate defence because he was permanently hounded, with unpleasant things published about him. He says he was badly treated institutionally.

SO - In this context your conclusion is that the book is against the institution or against the McCanns?

The Judge overrules.

SO - His legitimate defence is the one of somebody who...
ED (finishing the sentence)... defends the work he did with sincerity.

d) TVI's lawyer questions the witness (here for the defence)

TVI - The suspicions concerning the McCanns started at a certain time. In the first days the UK media didn't criticise the parents nor cast doubts on them. They mainly focused on Madeleine and secondarily on the parents.
ED says that they rapidly mentioned an abductor, which gave an extraordinary dimension to the case, and then there was the spectacular TV appeal of the mother to the abductor. A mainly British media circus settled in. These media were ready to pay anything to obtain information. Then the parents started to travel, there was a big wave of solidarity, they met the Pope, etc. This was very uncommon and that's how the disappearance of Madeleine became a big event. In addition, an English journalist told the UK police of her suspicions concerning a man, Robert Murat. The event was taking aspects of a TV series (telenovela). Whatever happened thereafter, nothing could modify this situation. ED adds that the parents benefited from special treatment.

TVI - First the media's concern themselves with the child and then they centre on the parents. Is that normal?
ED Nobody knew whether the abductor was imaginary or real. The media focused on lateral aspects of the case, the group of friends, a certain neglect of the children, some contradictions.

TVI - Was the media presence generally predominantly British or Portuguese?
ED says that they waited to see what the UK press would publish the following day. He says they were amazed by the extracts from the September 2007 statements given to the PJ which the UK press reproduced. He added that it seemed as if the British Press had access to internal official sources.

The Judge overrules this last comment.

TVI wants to know about the importance of media treatment of this case in order to compare different years.

The Judge says that that issue will be considered by the Court.

e) Dra Duarte, the McCann's lawyer, questions the witness (here as a witness of the defence)

ID - Was Gonçalo Amaral's book published for his defence?
ED answers "yes" and adds that the police investigation coordinated by GA was severely criticised thus he was entitled to respond.

ID - Do you think the book contributes in the defence of GA?
ED thinks it does.

ID - For what reason?
ED – through this book he defends his work as a PJ Coordinator and why he came to certain conclusions.

ID – So why the need to publish a book?
ED answers that, as a citizen, it seems to him legitimate to do so, he adds that GA's team's work was attacked by many people after the McCanns were made arguidos. He says that the investigation led to his conviction.

ID asks about the media treatment when the book was launched. She wants to know what the consequences of the book and the documentary were.

The Judge interrupts saying that the witness has already answered to that.

ID - asks if the witness knows when the documentary was broadcast.
ED thinks it was later. He says he remembers the work of the cadaver dogs.

ID - asks whether the interest was maintained afterwards.
ED says "yes" and adds it's difficult to distinguish between the motives involved. He says there was no essential alteration.

Evidence ends.
End of day 6.

Previous Transcripts:

Day 1 - 12th September 2013
Witness 1 Susan Hubbard (friend of Mrs McCann)
Witness 2, Emma Loach (Documentary film maker)
Witness 3, David Edgar (Private Investigator for the McCanns)

Day 2 - 13th September 2013
Witness 1, David Trickey (Psychologist)
Witness 2, Angus McBride (Lawyer)

Day 3 - 19th September 2013
Witness 1, Alan Pike (Trauma Consultant)
Witness 2, João Melchior Gomes (Former Deputy Attorney General)
Witness 3, Alípio Ribeiro (Former National director of the Polícia Judiciária)
Wintess 4, Cláudia Nogueira(Media Consultant)

Day 4 – 20 September 2013
Witness 1, Michael Wright (Administrator) – his wife is Kate McCann's cousin.
Witness 2, Maria Stilwell (Writer and Newspaper Editor)

Day 5 – 27 September 2013
Postponed Explanation of Postponement

Day 6 - 2nd October 2013
Witness 1, Patricia Cameron - Gerry McCann's sister (Nurse)
Witness 2, Henrique Machado (Reporter for Correio da Manhã newspaper)

Saturday 5 October 2013

McCann v Amaral (02 Oct 2013) Henrique Machado Transcript

Libel Trial Day 6
Henrique Machado
(Reporter for Correio da Manhã newspaper)

By Anne Guedes of the UK Justice Forum

Libel Trial McCann v Gonçalo Amaral - Day 6, Witness No2

Note: This witness is the last witness of the accusation strictly speaking, unless the Judge agrees to Mr Gerry McCann taking the stand in November.

The testimony as it happened...

(02.10.2013, 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.

The Judge asks him if he knows why he has been asked to testify.
HM – 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 interview. (Note: this interview was published on the 24th of July, the day GA's book was launched, on paper edition only)

The Judge asks in what circumstances this interview occurred.
HM – It was an initiative of the Correio da Manhã. At the time Gonçalo Amaral had already resigned and had left the Polícia Judiciária (PJ).

The Judge asks whether the witness knew that Gonçalo Amaral had a thesis about the case.
HM – Yes. He says that this understanding was induced by the orientation of the investigation.

The Judge observes that the process had evolved (after GA was dismissed).
HM says it's normal that Gonçalo Amaral had a thesis.

The Judge 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?
HM 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).

The Judge tells him he can sit down.

McCann 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.
HM argues that the journalists' sources are protected.

The Judge overrules the question.

ID – Do you know that Mr Amaral was dismissed from the case?

Dr Santos de Oliveira, GA's lawyer, protests and the Judge overrules.

ID – Do you know why he was dismissed?

The Judge again overrules.

ID insists her question about what led to the dismissal is important, but the Judge overrules.
SO starts protesting and ID raises her voice. The Judge overrules SO, but ID interrupts the Judge saying that it was GA who made affirmations...
The Judge interrupts reminding that she is the one who directs the session, she asks ID to please not interrupt her.

ID wants to show a document to the witness, a newspaper (a copy of the Correio da Manhã), in order to confirm that they will speak of the same interview.
ID justifies 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.

The Judge asks the witness to read the article.
The Judge asks the witness if the interview was taped.
HM answers that interviews are normally tape-recorded in order to provide an accurate transcript.

The documentary maker Valentim de Carvalho's lawyer intervenes to ask whether the transcript is complete or partial or if it was adapted for journalistic reasons.
HM says of necessity it had to be adapted to the allotted space in the newspaper.

VC – Are the titles (note : as he uses a plural, he likely means the title and the sub-headings) the responsibility of the newspaper or did Gonçalo Amaral participate?
HM says GA didn't participate, all titles are the responsibility of the newspaper.

ID starts reading an extract of the interview which refers to the freeze and transport topic and asks if it suffered journalistic treatment.
HM – In what way? Then he adds that sometimes they have to suppress parts of an interview, but they respect what is said.

The Judge asks whether this principle (respect of what is said) applies to the entire interview.
HM says that with so much time passing he can't answer. He says they were careful to keep a certain distance.

VC quotes a sentence on condensation and asks whether it was given journalistic treatment.
HM 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.

The Judge says the witness may go.

Evidence ends.

ID dictates 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.

GP (Guerra&Paz's lawyer) dictates her position, the rules have to be respected.

SO (GA's lawyer) dictates that it seems the witness wasn't so important or hadn't 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. The Judge 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 evidence.

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 lawyer for the plaintiffs had officially given her up. She therefore doesn't authorize the witness to take the stand.

End of morning session

Previous Transcripts:

Day 1 - 12th September 2013
Witness 1 Susan Hubbard (friend of Mrs McCann)
Witness 2, Emma Loach (Documentary film maker)
Witness 3, David Edgar (Private Investigator for the McCanns)

Day 2 - 13th September 2013
Witness 1, David Trickey (Psychologist)
Witness 2, Angus McBride (Lawyer)

Day 3 - 19th September 2013
Witness 1, Alan Pike (Trauma Consultant)
Witness 2, João Melchior Gomes (Former Deputy Attorney General)
Witness 3, Alípio Ribeiro (Former National director of the Polícia Judiciária)
Witness 4, Cláudia Nogueira(Media Consultant)

Day 4 – 20 September 2013
Witness 1, Michael Wright (Administrator) – his wife is Kate McCann's cousin.
Witness 2, Maria Stilwell (Writer and Newspaper Editor)

Day 5 – 27 September 2013
Postponed Explanation of Postponement

Day 6 - 2nd October 2013
Witness 1, Patricia Cameron - Gerry McCann's sister (Nurse)

Friday 4 October 2013

McCann v Amaral (02 Oct 2013) Trish Cameron Transcript

Libel Trial Day 6
Patricia Cameron – Gerry McCann's sister
(Nurse)

By Anne Guedes of the UK Justice Forum

Libel Trial McCann v Gonçalo Amaral - Day 6 Witness No1

The testimony as it happened...

(02.10.2013, 10:10 am) The Judge arrives. TVI's lawyer is missing. The Judge dictates a note to the Clerk of the Court relating to the delay.

The McCann’s lawyer, Dra Isabel Duarte, reminds the Court that on 12th September 2013, the Complainants requested that Guerra & Paz produce the receipts signed by Gonçalo Amaral relating to his book copyrights.

Lawyer for Dr Amaral, Dr Santos de Oliveira, objects, but the Judge refers to the new CPC and states that a party can present documents at any time up to the end of the sessions.

The Judge rules that the defence must deliver up the documents requested.

In relation to the order in which the witnesses will give testimony, the Judge suggests that Mrs Cameron (Gerry McCann’s sister) testifies in the afternoon, but ID objects stating that this was not possible since her flight back to the UK departs shortly after lunch. The witness Henrique Machado cannot swap places with Mrs Cameron because he has an appointment also around that time.

The Judge decides that he will hear Mrs Cameron as the first witness immediately followed by Mr Machado whilst third witness Mr Dâmaso is asked to come back at 2.30pm for the afternoon session.

The TVI lawyer has still not arrived but the Judge says the session will start regardless. Dr Santos de Oliveira pleads the missing lawyer’s case and attempts to obtain a further 5 minutes adjournment as it appears that the TVI lawyer is stuck in a traffic queue following a road accident.

The testimony as it happened...

(02.10.2013, 10:25 am) (Patricia Cameron née McCann) Trish Cameron. Divorced and a nurse by occupation.

The Judge asks her where she was when Madeleine disappeared.
TC answers she was at home at the time, she was married and living in ......... She thinks that she was the first person Gerald McCann called after Madeleine was taken. She says she spoke to her local police and then spoke with her mother. She managed to get to Praia da Luz by the 5th May 2007 and remained there for 3 months before returning to the UK. She later returned to Praia da Luz.

The Judge asks how frequently she speaks with her brother and sister in law and whether she meets them sometimes.
TC says she calls them on the phone and sends SMS as well as visiting them in Rothley. But when something important occurs such as this trial she is in daily contact with them.

The Judge asks what the distance is from her home to that of the McCanns in Rothley.
TC says it’s about 330 miles.

The Judge asks whether TC feels free to tell the truth, in spite of her relationship with the McCanns. TC answers "yes".

The Judge asks whether TC can swear by her honour.
TC swears.

McCann family lawyer, Isabel Duarte, is the first to question the witness.

ID – We are here to discuss the eventual consequences, in the McCann family's life, of the publication of Mr Amaral's book and of the broadcast of the documentary based on that book. Have you read the book and watched the documentary? TC – Yes, both.

ID – In which circumstances have you read the book and watched the documentary?
TC – Gerry called me on the phone and told me about the book and...
ID interrupts asking the witness to speak more slowly because she wants to understand. To explain, Trish Cameron speaks quickly and with a strong Glaswegian accent rendering translation to Portuguese difficult at times.
TC (resuming) – Gerry was very upset about the documentary.

ID – Under what circumstances did you read the book?
TC says Gerry telephoned her asking for help and for her to come and stay with them.

ID – Had Gerry just been made aware of the book? Was it translated?
TC thinks he had a translated version

ID – Do you know who did the translation?
TC answers her husband found it on the internet.

ID – When did he watch the documentary?
TC says it was much later. Gerry told her they were feeling very bad and that everybody believed the documentary. Asked again, she remembers that it was broadcast in April 2009.

ID – What do you know about the consequences, following the shelving of the case?
TC says that right after the case had been closed, the book appeared saying her brother and sister in law were somehow involved and that meant no-one would look for Madeleine. As soon as the book was published, people’s opinions started to change. Though "we know that the book doesn't tell the truth", while they were trying to get some balance, people didn't believe the official version. When they came back to the UK, the people supported them. After the book was published, the number of supporters decreased. She says she used to help her brother and sister in law and had to make sure that someone would watch over them when she had to leave.

ID – For how long have you been doing this?
TC says she did it every time she had days off or a long week-end. Many people came to help.

ID – How were the McCanns at that time?
TC says that Kate was very low, she wasn't able to face daily life and Gerry had to go to work. Kate used to go to the church and visit a counsellor, but she didn't go to the shops and had no social life. TC adds she helped with the cooking and with looking after the other two children.

ID – Was the situation difficult before the book was published? What was the difference between the before and after?
TC says that it was very different. Before, when they were arguidos, they were quite unhappy, but the effect of the book was very different because it offered a conclusion which effectively was demonising and dehumanising her brother and her sister in law.

ID – Was the reaction to the book equal to that of the documentary?
TC (doesn't answer the question, might not have properly understood) The book was the first thing, it spread quickly, there was a lot of publicity. People started to turn their backs on them and nobody was looking for Madeleine.

ID – On which occasion did the McCann couple feel completely destroyed?
The Judge overrules the question.
ID – How did they know that people had turned their backs on them?
TC says that many people read the book and that as the book was written by the inspector who led the criminal investigation, the people believed that he was telling the truth. She adds that the book wouldn't have had so much success if it wasn't written by the head of the investigation. She says there was a lot of publicity about the book even before it was published. The reader is led to a conclusion which is false, it is a lie. She adds that the McCanns were already living the nightmare of having lost their eldest daughter and the book increased their distress saying they didn't care for their children.

ID – Was their despair related to the information that was coming from Portugal?
TC says they were vilified. If the book tells lies, how will people help them?

ID – Did they stop socialising after the book was published and why?
TC says they have resumed a social life only a year ago or so, but adds that they don't go out much. They feel better when they are in friend’s homes.

ID – Were they despised by friends?
TC says "no", but when some of the locals in Portugal screamed at them, they were advised to take security measures.

ID – Do you have something more to say about the effect of the book and the documentary?
TC speaks of the internet, the fact that the files are public and very easy to access even by children.

ID – What relationship do you have with the children (the twins)?
TC says they get along very well with them, they have a very close relationship.

ID – When did the twins go to school for the first time?
TC – It was in August when they were 5 years old.

ID – Do they read and write easily?
TC answers "yes".

ID – Do they know of the book and its conclusions?
TC says that some pupils mentioned it at school. Last week Amelie told that somebody had spoken about it at school.

ID – Have you heard her say this?
TC says "no".

ID – What about Sean?
TC says she doesn’t know.

ID – What did Amelie say?
TC – People were speaking about her.

ID – Was she more specific?
TC – No, and Kate tried to minimize this. She says that in the past Sean asked his father, "Are you famous?", because a friend told him he had seen his father on TV. Gerry said he wasn't famous, that all this was because of Madeleine.

ID – Do the children have access to the internet at school?
TC says "yes", but she thinks it is monitored and controlled.

ID asks whether the attention of the media increased or decreased after the publication of the book and the documentary.
TC says it increased.

ID – How do you know?
TC explains that her husband collaborated in the (Madeleine Fund) website. There was much more activity on-line.

ID – And in the media, did they talk of the book?
TC Not so much. But they (the McCanns) received information from Portugal according to which the matter was very much talked about.

ID – Can you name the people who said so?
TC names Susan Hubbard, but says she doesn't know the others.

2) Defence lawyers.
a) Santos Oliveira (GA lawyer) questions

SO – You said the book had a big effect on the McCanns. Have you knowledge of a Petition containing some 17,000 signatures which originated in the UK in January 2008, which demanded that Social Services investigate the family about the children being left alone?
ID tries to protest against this question, but the Judge overrules.
TC says she heard about it.

SO – How did the McCanns react to that? In what state were they?
TC says they were unhappy.

SO – Do you know that 70% of the UK people, in August 2007, protested against the fact the McCanns had left their children alone?
TC answers "no".

SO – Did you know the UK police indicated that the child could be dead?
TC answers "no".

SO – Why do you assume that the book is conclusive?
TC Because there's only one conclusion.

SO – Have you knowledge of the process which made the McCanns arguidos?
TC says the fact they were arguidos was public.

SO clarifies and speaks of the Attorney General’s Final Report according to which the most likely scenario was that Madeleine was dead.
TC says she's aware of that.

SO asks if the witness is aware that the closing of the case was inconclusive because of lack of evidence and therefore recommended the lifting of the arguido status?
TC answers "yes".

SO – Then why was it worse when the book was published?
TC – There's no alternative in the book. It says that Madeleine died accidentally and her parents tried to cover it up.

SO – Last week, Amelie mentioned that they were talked about at school and that previously it had never happened. Does it have something to do with this trial?
TC – Yes, it does.

ID – When you were told about the Petition against the McCanns...

The Judge corrects – for the Social Services

ID – What do you know was done?
TC doesn't know much. She knows that measures were taken against it, they went to Court. She doesn't know much more.

The Judge – A senhora pode ir à sua vida = The lady may go back to her life

TC says she wishes to say something. She states that Kate studied the PJ files and the process and said it was very different from what is in the book.

SO protests and ID even more.

The Judge overrules saying that it falls to the Court to compare the book and the investigation process and she does not need the intervention of the witness to do so.

Evidence ends.

Previous Transcripts:

Day 1 - 12th September 2013
Witness 1 Susan Hubbard (friend of Mrs McCann)
Witness 2, Emma Loach (Documentary film maker)
Witness 3, David Edgar (Private Investigator for the McCanns)

Day 2 - 13th September 2013
Witness 1, David Trickey (Psychologist)
Witness 2, Angus McBride (Lawyer)

Day 3 - 19th September 2013
Witness 1, Alan Pike (Trauma Consultant)
Witness 2, João Melchior Gomes (Former Deputy Attorney General)
Witness 3, Alípio Ribeiro (Former National director of the Polícia Judiciária)
Witness 4, Cláudia Nogueira(Media Consultant)

Day 4 – 20 September 2013
Witness 1, Michael Wright (Administrator) – his wife is Kate McCann's cousin.
Witness 2, Maria Stilwell (Writer and Newspaper Editor)

Day 5 – 27 September 2013
Postponed Explanation of Postponement

Thursday 3 October 2013

Has the McCann vs Gonçalo Amaral libel trial become a comedy of errors?

Written by John
Senior Editor of UK Justice Forum

Day 6 at the McCann vs Gonçalo Amaral and Others libel hearing in Lisbon couldn't have been much worse for McCann family lawyer Isabel Duarte and her faithful assistant Ricardo Alfonso.

Kate McCann's mother, Susan Healey, was scheduled to testify on day 2 of the trial but the Judge never made it back to the Court for the afternoon session. Worse was yet to come as an oversight by Mrs Duarte meant that although Mrs Healey again returned to the Court yesterday she was refused the opportunity to take the stand. Third time lucky perhaps you might say but that is not how the Portuguese Justice System works. Truth is that Mrs Healey may not now have an opportunity to give evidence to the trial.

For his part, Gerry McCann has now appeared at the hearings over two days, he attended last Friday and again yesterday accompanied by Mrs Healey and his sister Patricia Cameron. Gerry never intended to testify but following a change in the Law (a plaintiff can now give evidence in a libel case) he decided to do so. Off course all of this might well be academic since it is the Judge who interprets the rulebook as to who will or will not give evidence and she appears to be becoming increasingly irritated at events. Whether Gerry McCann will ultimately be allowed to testify is as yet still to be determined.

And as if it wasn't complicated enough, it now appears that former PJ Coordinator, Gonçalo Amaral, also wants to get in on the act and has applied to testify on his own behalf. Whether the good Judge will allow it is akin to so much in this case, an unknown quantity.

Finally, it seems the action is not confined to the courtroom if events outside the Palace of Justice yesterday are anything to go by with McCann lawyer Isabel Duarte launching a screaming tirade towards our own correspondent. The reason? Simply because she dared take a photo of the disheveled Duarte and her assistant Ricardo Alfonso.

It wasn't to end there though. Several hours later this exchange of words took a sinister new twist with Alfonso posting an ominous threat against our correspondent on twitter. One has to wonder is this really the conduct one would expect from professionals involved in such a high profile case?

The McCanns have been plagued throughout their search for Madeleine by incompetents and unprofessional conduct by those they have contracted. By the looks of it they have managed it all over again

Tweets by Ricardo C Afonso

@aacg @xklamation Sra. Anne Guedes agradeço retire do UK justice forum a foto que bem sabe nao lhe foi autorizada. Tem ate as 12h de amanha

Google Translation:

"Mrs. Anne Guedes thank remove the UK justice forum the photo and not know it was allowed. Have until 12am tomorrow's"

@aacg @xklamation se nao a retirar, reagirei em conformidade.

Google Translation:

"if not to remove, will react accordingly."