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
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)


Sharon said...

Have you wondered why nobody is commenting on your blog, probably because it's rubbish? What's clever about a load of copy and paste?

Jaci said...

I don't mind if people don't comment, especially as I don't have time to reply, but I do think you've missed the point Sharon. All the copying and pasting of Anne's hard work (credit given to her on each post) is to help spread the transcripts because the mainstream media are doing a poor job of balanced reporting when it comes to the McCann v Amaral trial.