Source: Pamalam's blog
Important notice from astro
This did NOT happen in a court session,
Nobody went to court on Tuesday. There was no session at all.
We heard about the postponement on Monday. The filing of documents took place between Friday afternoon and Monday, as far as I know.
Gonçalo Amaral's lawyer filed a request for the court to evaluate the McCann couple's legitimacy to file a lawsuit in their daughter's name, as she is a Ward of Court in the UK.
He did not ask for any postponement. It was the judge that issued a 15-day deadline for him to submit the relevant documentation.
Afterwards, Dr Isabel Duarte filed a document that is related to Mr Alan Pike, and asked for a postponement of Tuesday's session.
This information is not covered by judicial secrecy and can be freely shared.
Monday, 13 January 2014
Tuesday, 3 December 2013
McCann v Amaral (27 Nov 2013) Day 10
By Anne Guedes & John (Senior Editor) of the UK Justice Forum
Day 10 of the trial sees Luis Froes return to complete his evidence...
Libel trial McCann v Gonçalo Amaral - Day 10
(27.11.2013, 10.00am)
Dra Isabel Duarte, the McCanns' lawyer, is today substituted by her assistant, Dr Ricardo Afonso.
The Judge seeks further confirmation from Gonçalo Amaral's lawyer that they no longer wish to call Dr Paulo Sargento to the stand
Defence lawyers who were previously ordered to provide financial documents to the Court seek and receive a 10 day extension.
Witness Luis Froes is recalled today to give further evidence. He previously testified on the 5th November having been called by lawyer Dr. Henrique Costa Pinto acting on behalf of Valentim de CarvalhoFilmes and VC Multimedia. His return to Court today was ordered by the Judge following his failure to provide qualified responses to certain questions on the previous occasion.
Dr. Henrique Costa Pinto, is the only lawyer to question the witness.
VC - refers to some invoices which the Clerk to the Court presents to LF, and asks to what they refer.
LF reads and says he is aware of these documents.
VC - What is the first document about?
LF presumes that it is about the cost of the seals.
VC - Is it an invoice?
LF says the amount is €75,000. He adds that the seals guarantee the authenticity of the product.
VC - Is the function of the seals to authenticate the DVDs?
LF - It is. The witness thinks that the contract indicated that VC Multimedia were responsible for the cost of the seals.
VC adds that VC Multimedia had to prove that it had the rights.
LF reads the second document.
VC – Getting back on the first document.
LF – VC Multimedia charged Presslivre - Imprensa Livre, S.A. (owner of the newspaper Correio da Manhã) with the cost of the seals.
VC – About the second document?
LF says it is an invoice for €xxxxxx to Presslivre.
VC – And about the third document?
LF – It concerns the distributed copies.
VC – Do you remember having given authorisation to destroy the unsold copies?
LF says he does vaguely remember they were destroyed.
VC – Is it usual practice when products cease to be bought?
LF says it is.
VC – There is a number that doesn't correspond to the number of surplus copies. It seems the invoice concerns fewer copies than there actually were. Subtracting to the number of distributed copies for sale the number of unsold (destroyed) copies gives a slight difference in relation to the invoice.
LF doesn't explain this difference.
VC – Apart from this edition, was there a second edition in Portugal or in other foreign countries?
LF says that in this case he would have had to authorise it, which he never did.
VC – You don't remember.
LF says he doesn't.
Evidence ends.
After a break, the Plaintiffs lawyer Dr Ricardo Afonso plays a recording of the original TV broadcast of the documentary (with publicity etc.) to the Court on a small screen. After a few technical problems, he decides to substitute the original broadcast with the DVD.
The Judge takes some notes.
It is scheduled that two video presentations are also played to the Court, but Dr Ricardo Afonso desists of one (an interview made on 16th May 2009) and plays the second one, dated 27th May 2009 (SIC, Querida Julia program).
The Judge takes some notes of Querida Julia's round table.
Taking part are Gonçalo Amaral, Paulo Sargento and, on the phone from Brussels, Duarte Levy.
The video starts with mention of GA's condemnation related to his involvement in the Joana Cipriano case. GA states that the new suspect is a British man (whose name is never disclosed, but everybody will understand who he is, a dying man) accused of assaulting teenagers and with convictions in the UK. GA criticises the PJ for having let the private detective group Metodo 3 undertake the investigation of this man and his possible involvement in the disappearance of Madeleine McCann. Duarte Levy states that the suspect is in Germany and that he was informed that this man (married to a German woman) wasn't properly investigated in Germany and that detectives weren't even allowed into his hospital room. The discussion expands to cover the moral aspect of taking advantage of someone who is seriously ill. Duarte Levy says that the documentary, with English subtitles, made it possible for those with little or no understanding of the Maddie case to appreciate in less than an hour what was at stake. Paulo Sargento underlines that little is known about what really happened between 5.30pm and 8.30pm and adds that the British investigators' paedophile hypothesis is geographically implausible. Gonçalo Amaral concludes saying that trusting in justice is a must (referring to his condemnation in the Joana Case).
The gathering of evidence has concluded.
The Judge proposes that the last session with the allegations and statements from the parties be fixed for the 18 December but changes this to 7 January 2014 which is the first date when all parties will be available.
End of session.
Day 10 of the trial sees Luis Froes return to complete his evidence...
Libel trial McCann v Gonçalo Amaral - Day 10
(27.11.2013, 10.00am)
Dra Isabel Duarte, the McCanns' lawyer, is today substituted by her assistant, Dr Ricardo Afonso.
The Judge seeks further confirmation from Gonçalo Amaral's lawyer that they no longer wish to call Dr Paulo Sargento to the stand
Defence lawyers who were previously ordered to provide financial documents to the Court seek and receive a 10 day extension.
Witness Luis Froes is recalled today to give further evidence. He previously testified on the 5th November having been called by lawyer Dr. Henrique Costa Pinto acting on behalf of Valentim de CarvalhoFilmes and VC Multimedia. His return to Court today was ordered by the Judge following his failure to provide qualified responses to certain questions on the previous occasion.
Dr. Henrique Costa Pinto, is the only lawyer to question the witness.
VC - refers to some invoices which the Clerk to the Court presents to LF, and asks to what they refer.
LF reads and says he is aware of these documents.
VC - What is the first document about?
LF presumes that it is about the cost of the seals.
VC - Is it an invoice?
LF says the amount is €75,000. He adds that the seals guarantee the authenticity of the product.
VC - Is the function of the seals to authenticate the DVDs?
LF - It is. The witness thinks that the contract indicated that VC Multimedia were responsible for the cost of the seals.
VC adds that VC Multimedia had to prove that it had the rights.
LF reads the second document.
VC – Getting back on the first document.
LF – VC Multimedia charged Presslivre - Imprensa Livre, S.A. (owner of the newspaper Correio da Manhã) with the cost of the seals.
VC – About the second document?
LF says it is an invoice for €xxxxxx to Presslivre.
VC – And about the third document?
LF – It concerns the distributed copies.
VC – Do you remember having given authorisation to destroy the unsold copies?
LF says he does vaguely remember they were destroyed.
VC – Is it usual practice when products cease to be bought?
LF says it is.
VC – There is a number that doesn't correspond to the number of surplus copies. It seems the invoice concerns fewer copies than there actually were. Subtracting to the number of distributed copies for sale the number of unsold (destroyed) copies gives a slight difference in relation to the invoice.
LF doesn't explain this difference.
VC – Apart from this edition, was there a second edition in Portugal or in other foreign countries?
LF says that in this case he would have had to authorise it, which he never did.
VC – You don't remember.
LF says he doesn't.
Evidence ends.
After a break, the Plaintiffs lawyer Dr Ricardo Afonso plays a recording of the original TV broadcast of the documentary (with publicity etc.) to the Court on a small screen. After a few technical problems, he decides to substitute the original broadcast with the DVD.
The Judge takes some notes.
It is scheduled that two video presentations are also played to the Court, but Dr Ricardo Afonso desists of one (an interview made on 16th May 2009) and plays the second one, dated 27th May 2009 (SIC, Querida Julia program).
The Judge takes some notes of Querida Julia's round table.
Taking part are Gonçalo Amaral, Paulo Sargento and, on the phone from Brussels, Duarte Levy.
The video starts with mention of GA's condemnation related to his involvement in the Joana Cipriano case. GA states that the new suspect is a British man (whose name is never disclosed, but everybody will understand who he is, a dying man) accused of assaulting teenagers and with convictions in the UK. GA criticises the PJ for having let the private detective group Metodo 3 undertake the investigation of this man and his possible involvement in the disappearance of Madeleine McCann. Duarte Levy states that the suspect is in Germany and that he was informed that this man (married to a German woman) wasn't properly investigated in Germany and that detectives weren't even allowed into his hospital room. The discussion expands to cover the moral aspect of taking advantage of someone who is seriously ill. Duarte Levy says that the documentary, with English subtitles, made it possible for those with little or no understanding of the Maddie case to appreciate in less than an hour what was at stake. Paulo Sargento underlines that little is known about what really happened between 5.30pm and 8.30pm and adds that the British investigators' paedophile hypothesis is geographically implausible. Gonçalo Amaral concludes saying that trusting in justice is a must (referring to his condemnation in the Joana Case).
The gathering of evidence has concluded.
The Judge proposes that the last session with the allegations and statements from the parties be fixed for the 18 December but changes this to 7 January 2014 which is the first date when all parties will be available.
End of session.
Wednesday, 20 November 2013
McCann v Gonçalo Amaral Libel Trial in Lisbon - Day 9
By Anne Guedes & John ( Senior Editor) of the UK Justice Forum
Lisbon - Tuesday 19 Nov 2013
All lawyers are present. VCFilmes/Multimedia's lawyer is substituted by a lawyer who states that she took part in the Providência Cautelar (Injunction hearing). Witnesses due to testify today are dismissed by defendants TVI, VC and Gonçalo Amaral and will no longer be required to give evidence.
The Judge starts the session by raising the issue of documents requested by the plaintiffs evidencing the value of royalties paid to Gonçalo Amaral. She reminds the Court that G&P's position is that the request is extemporaneous and illegal and that no other payment was received beyond that previously declared to the Court. One such document relates to a request to Gonçalo Amaral to provide receipts X and Y specific to the period from 17 - 30 October 2008 and from 6 - 30 November 2009. The Judge adds that any others are of no consequence since G&P has proven that no other royalties were paid to Gonçalo Amaral.
The Judge reminds the Court of the principle that when a Party declares to another Party that a requested document does not exist or is not in their possession, the legal remedy is not for the pursuer to make a further request but to prove through whatever means that the respondent is being untruthful. The Judge therefore grants a request by the plaintiffs that receipts be provided as previously requested since the defender has failed to produce the information sought.
TVI must provide an extract of accounts for the fiscal years 2008, 2009 and 2010 related to VCFilmes and VCMultimédia. They are given 10 days to produce the relevant documents.
The Judge omits partially a request concerning the accounts of VCFilmes, which are limited to the the period from the 7 February 2012 onwards. VC Filmes is also given 10 days to produce the documents.
The Judge reminds the Court that the request by the plaintiffs is related to the search of material facts in order that justice is done. However, she adds that the lawyer representing G&P should consider that if any of the documents requested in the process contain information unrelated to Gonçalo Amaral then that should be maintained apart for commercial and/or fiscal reasons. The defence is therefore authorised to present said documents in the judicial section in order to protect any commercially sensitive information, making only available that which relates to the process concerming the relationship between G&P and Gonçalo Amaral. G&P is given 10 days to respond to the request.
The Judge adds that G&P has already provided indications about the financial aspect of the publication of the book and about the number of books that have been sold.
The Judge finally confirms that the date of the next hearing will be on Wednesday 27 November 2013. The date for the final allegations will then be fixed.
End of session.
All lawyers are present. VCFilmes/Multimedia's lawyer is substituted by a lawyer who states that she took part in the Providência Cautelar (Injunction hearing). Witnesses due to testify today are dismissed by defendants TVI, VC and Gonçalo Amaral and will no longer be required to give evidence.
The Judge starts the session by raising the issue of documents requested by the plaintiffs evidencing the value of royalties paid to Gonçalo Amaral. She reminds the Court that G&P's position is that the request is extemporaneous and illegal and that no other payment was received beyond that previously declared to the Court. One such document relates to a request to Gonçalo Amaral to provide receipts X and Y specific to the period from 17 - 30 October 2008 and from 6 - 30 November 2009. The Judge adds that any others are of no consequence since G&P has proven that no other royalties were paid to Gonçalo Amaral.
The Judge reminds the Court of the principle that when a Party declares to another Party that a requested document does not exist or is not in their possession, the legal remedy is not for the pursuer to make a further request but to prove through whatever means that the respondent is being untruthful. The Judge therefore grants a request by the plaintiffs that receipts be provided as previously requested since the defender has failed to produce the information sought.
TVI must provide an extract of accounts for the fiscal years 2008, 2009 and 2010 related to VCFilmes and VCMultimédia. They are given 10 days to produce the relevant documents.
The Judge omits partially a request concerning the accounts of VCFilmes, which are limited to the the period from the 7 February 2012 onwards. VC Filmes is also given 10 days to produce the documents.
The Judge reminds the Court that the request by the plaintiffs is related to the search of material facts in order that justice is done. However, she adds that the lawyer representing G&P should consider that if any of the documents requested in the process contain information unrelated to Gonçalo Amaral then that should be maintained apart for commercial and/or fiscal reasons. The defence is therefore authorised to present said documents in the judicial section in order to protect any commercially sensitive information, making only available that which relates to the process concerming the relationship between G&P and Gonçalo Amaral. G&P is given 10 days to respond to the request.
The Judge adds that G&P has already provided indications about the financial aspect of the publication of the book and about the number of books that have been sold.
The Judge finally confirms that the date of the next hearing will be on Wednesday 27 November 2013. The date for the final allegations will then be fixed.
End of session.
Monday, 18 November 2013
McCann v Amaral (05 Nov 2013) Paulo Santos Transcript
Libel Trial Day 8
Paulo Santos
(Lawyer and Media Executive)
By Anne Guedes of the UK Justice Forum
Libel trial McCann v Gonçalo Amaral - Day 8 Witness No 3
The testimony as it happened...
(05.11.2013, 3:30pm) António Paulo Antunes dos Santos is a Lawyer and post-graduate in Communication Law specialising in the field of Intellectual Property Rights. He is currently the Chief Executive of the Federação Editores de Videogramas (FEVIP), a Portuguese Association which represents the interests of its affiliate members in the coordination of the national programme against audiovisual piracy. He is also a former Polícia Judiciária Inspector.
Up until 2009, VCFilmes was an affiliate member of FEVIP.
The Judge Maria Emília de Avillez Melo e Castro – Do you know what this trial is about?
AS says he remembers the issue of the Providência Cautelar (Injunction hearing).
The Judge – Do you know Gonçalo Amaral?
AS says he does, they were colleagues in the Policia Judiciaria for some years and they occasionally talk to each other. He adds that, as a juridical consultant, he helped GA concerning the contract with G&P and the rights related to the documentary's production by VCFilmes.
The judge raises the issue of confidentiality, but AS says he was not Gonçalo Amaral’s lawyer.
It is established that there is professional confidentiality covering the issue of the contracts, but questions can be asked concerning other matters. This limitation will be observed.
The defence lawyer for VCFilmes, Dr. Henrique Costa Pinto, is the only lawyer to question the witness.
VC - Did you know GA before the book was published?
AS answers that he met GA at the PJ. Though their areas were different, they worked together for some time and had a good relationship. He says that he left the PJ in 1991 in order to lead a program for the protection of authors against the violation of their rights.
VC - Do you know the book by Gonçalo Amaral?
AS says he does.
VC - This book was the basis for a documentary, it was adapted into a film that was broadcast by TVI Have you watched it?
AS says he did. He adds that he bought the DVD with a copy of the Correio da Manhã.
VC - Do you remember when that was?
AS says it was in 2009.
VC - Apart from the version broadcast by TVI, have you knowledge of any copy made of this audio visual work?
AS – No legal one. He adds that an illegal reproduction appeared on the Internet on a certain site. He says that a complaint was lodged with the PJ.
VC - Was it a Portuguese site?
AS says he doesn't know who the webmaster was, but that the site was a Portuguese. He adds that the pirated copy had subtitles in English
VC - Did VCFilmes put this documentary on-line?
AS says that they didn't, they were the victims of a fraud and started an action against the hackers.
VC - Did your association (FEVIP) protest against foreign sites?
AS says "no".
VC - Was VCFilmes damaged in the process?
AS - Of course they were. If people have free access to the documentary on the Web, it represents a significant loss of clients.
VC - Are you sure that VCFilmes didn't authorise this?
AS - Absolutely.
VC - Have you some knowledge of the Criminal Process in the Madeleine case?
AS says he knows some parts of it but none in particular.
VC - Have you seen, in the documentary, parts that weren't in the Criminal Inquiry?
AS answers "no".
VC - What about the facts themselves?
AS says he doesn't know the details, but he thinks that what is in the book is in the Criminal Inquiry. He adds that GA's book analyses the case from the perspective of the investigator, namely, Gonçalo Amaral.
VC - But this perspective ended up not being confirmed.
AS says he doesn't understand what the lawyer means.
VC - What is the conclusion of the book?
AS - The evidence established at that determinate time allowed for some conclusions. The shelving of the case was months afterwards. The book, which was published afterwards, might have divergence points, but it clearly states that there is case for further investigations.
Evidence ends.
Note
The witness was consulted by the 8th Committee (education, science and culture) of the Parliament about the Cinema and Audio-visual Law on the 2 July 2012
http://www.parlamento.pt/ActividadeParlamentar/Paginas/DetalheIniciativa.aspx?BID=37048
About the testimony of this witness in the Providência Cautelar (injunction hearing)
http://www.mccannfiles.com/id297.html (10:32 am)
About the Court decision on the temporary injunction (February 2010)
http://www.mccannfiles.com/id339.html
Paulo Santos
(Lawyer and Media Executive)
By Anne Guedes of the UK Justice Forum
Libel trial McCann v Gonçalo Amaral - Day 8 Witness No 3
The testimony as it happened...
(05.11.2013, 3:30pm) António Paulo Antunes dos Santos is a Lawyer and post-graduate in Communication Law specialising in the field of Intellectual Property Rights. He is currently the Chief Executive of the Federação Editores de Videogramas (FEVIP), a Portuguese Association which represents the interests of its affiliate members in the coordination of the national programme against audiovisual piracy. He is also a former Polícia Judiciária Inspector.
Up until 2009, VCFilmes was an affiliate member of FEVIP.
The Judge Maria Emília de Avillez Melo e Castro – Do you know what this trial is about?
AS says he remembers the issue of the Providência Cautelar (Injunction hearing).
The Judge – Do you know Gonçalo Amaral?
AS says he does, they were colleagues in the Policia Judiciaria for some years and they occasionally talk to each other. He adds that, as a juridical consultant, he helped GA concerning the contract with G&P and the rights related to the documentary's production by VCFilmes.
The judge raises the issue of confidentiality, but AS says he was not Gonçalo Amaral’s lawyer.
It is established that there is professional confidentiality covering the issue of the contracts, but questions can be asked concerning other matters. This limitation will be observed.
The defence lawyer for VCFilmes, Dr. Henrique Costa Pinto, is the only lawyer to question the witness.
VC - Did you know GA before the book was published?
AS answers that he met GA at the PJ. Though their areas were different, they worked together for some time and had a good relationship. He says that he left the PJ in 1991 in order to lead a program for the protection of authors against the violation of their rights.
VC - Do you know the book by Gonçalo Amaral?
AS says he does.
VC - This book was the basis for a documentary, it was adapted into a film that was broadcast by TVI Have you watched it?
AS says he did. He adds that he bought the DVD with a copy of the Correio da Manhã.
VC - Do you remember when that was?
AS says it was in 2009.
VC - Apart from the version broadcast by TVI, have you knowledge of any copy made of this audio visual work?
AS – No legal one. He adds that an illegal reproduction appeared on the Internet on a certain site. He says that a complaint was lodged with the PJ.
VC - Was it a Portuguese site?
AS says he doesn't know who the webmaster was, but that the site was a Portuguese. He adds that the pirated copy had subtitles in English
VC - Did VCFilmes put this documentary on-line?
AS says that they didn't, they were the victims of a fraud and started an action against the hackers.
VC - Did your association (FEVIP) protest against foreign sites?
AS says "no".
VC - Was VCFilmes damaged in the process?
AS - Of course they were. If people have free access to the documentary on the Web, it represents a significant loss of clients.
VC - Are you sure that VCFilmes didn't authorise this?
AS - Absolutely.
VC - Have you some knowledge of the Criminal Process in the Madeleine case?
AS says he knows some parts of it but none in particular.
VC - Have you seen, in the documentary, parts that weren't in the Criminal Inquiry?
AS answers "no".
VC - What about the facts themselves?
AS says he doesn't know the details, but he thinks that what is in the book is in the Criminal Inquiry. He adds that GA's book analyses the case from the perspective of the investigator, namely, Gonçalo Amaral.
VC - But this perspective ended up not being confirmed.
AS says he doesn't understand what the lawyer means.
VC - What is the conclusion of the book?
AS - The evidence established at that determinate time allowed for some conclusions. The shelving of the case was months afterwards. The book, which was published afterwards, might have divergence points, but it clearly states that there is case for further investigations.
Evidence ends.
Note
The witness was consulted by the 8th Committee (education, science and culture) of the Parliament about the Cinema and Audio-visual Law on the 2 July 2012
http://www.parlamento.pt/ActividadeParlamentar/Paginas/DetalheIniciativa.aspx?BID=37048
About the testimony of this witness in the Providência Cautelar (injunction hearing)
http://www.mccannfiles.com/id297.html (10:32 am)
About the Court decision on the temporary injunction (February 2010)
http://www.mccannfiles.com/id339.html
Friday, 15 November 2013
McCann v Amaral (05 Nov 2013) Luis Froes Transcript
Libel Trial Day 8
Luis Froes
(Film Industry Executive)
By Anne Guedes of the UK Justice Forum
Libel trial McCann v Gonçalo Amaral - Day 8 Witness No 2
The testimony as it happened...
(05.11.2013, 2:45pm) Luis Froes is a Partner at Outsider Films Ltd. He was General Manager at Valentim de Carvalho Multimédia between April 2008 and September 2012, in which period the Amaral documentary was produced. His evidence relates to the background in which the documentary was produced.
Please note the following:
• VCFilmes S.A. is the Company which produced the documentary Maddie: The Truth of the Lie based on the book by Dr Gonçalo Amaral (GA) and directed by Carlos Coelho da Silva.
• The rights of edition and distribution of this documentary in DVD format were ceded to VC Multimédia S.A., this Company therefore being their representative as regards the exploration or commercialisation of the rights of television broadcast or transmission of this documentary in foreign countries.
• The reproduction and editing were authorised by Valentim de Carvalho Multimédia to the company Presslivre - Imprensa Livre, S.A., owner of the newspaper Correio da Manhã (CdM) by means of a contract established between both parties, under which terms, the DVDs, their covers and packaging would be produced on account, by order and under the responsibility of Presslivre, to be distributed and commercialised jointly with said newspaper.
The Judge Maria Emília de Avillez Melo e Castro asks the witness if he recalls the details of the distribution contract concerning the DVD.
LF doesn't remember.
The Judge – Who signed the contract?
LF says he did, but he doesn't know about the international contracts.
1) The Defence lawyers.
a) Valentim de Carvalho’s (VC) lawyer, Dr. Henrique Costa Pinto, is the first to question the witness.
VC - Did you take part in the Providência Cautelar (injunction judgement) hearings?
LF - Yes, but I don't remember when I took the stand.
VC refers to the DVD audiovisual adaptation of GA's book which was commercialised at the end of 2009. Was it edited by Valentim de Carvalho?
LF - Yes
VC - Who edited the DVD version which went on sale?
LF - VC Multimédia distributed. I don't know who edited.
VC - I'm talking of the copies of the DVD.
LF - VC Multimédia edited them.
VC - Wasn't the Correio da Manhã in charge of them?
LF – They had to be distributed.
VC - Who commercialised them?
LF - For me, commercialising or distributing is the same thing. The unique contract that existed was through the CdM.
The Court Clerk is asked to show the contract to the witness.
VC - The edition was made by the CdM.
LF - It was the CdM who sold the DVD to the public.
VC - Did VC commercialise the DVD?
LF says that for him "editing" is "editing" (montar)
(Note: the Portuguese "editar" that has been translated "edit" means establish the reproduction, publication and diffusion of a work. The Portuguese, as other languages, uses "montar" for "editing" a film).
VC - Who created the cover, the packaging?
LF says it was VC Multimédia .
VC - Then you've not looked at the contract? Do you have an issue with Valentim de Carvalho? In Court?
LF says he has.
The Judge – Are you the executing or the executed one?
LF says the action is against VC.
LF says that there is a problem of definition: VC produced a documentary, and then looked for the best way to distribute it and found CdM.
VC - Who created the cover and the packaging? Who was responsible for this?
LF says he doesn't remember. Normally the producer would do that, but in this case it might have not happened this way.
VC - What about the silver seals with the registration number?
LF doesn't know.
VC - Do you know how many copies were made?
LF says he knows.
VC - Do you know how many copies were destroyed?
LF says that all copies left over were destroyed.
VC - Was there a new edition of the DVD?
LF thinks "no".
VC – The documentary appeared with subtitles on the Internet.
LF says that everything, all sorts of things appear on the Web.
VC – But with subtitles?
LF doesn't remember.
VC makes a request to suspend this witness' testimony without prejudicing the continuity of the trial, because the witness requires to study the documents before being questioned further. Only Dra Duarte objects. The Judge tells the witness that he must return to give further evidence on the 27th November at 9:30 am.
VC requests that the examination of the witness continues but on another subject.
VC - Don't you remember seeing that documentary on the Web?
LF says he already stated in Court in January 2010 that he didn't.
VC - Do you think it could be that documentary?
LF says that there is no control over the release of films on the Internet.
VC - Did VC Multimédia already have the film subtitled?
LF answers "no".
VC - Did VC Multimédia use a system to prevent pirating on the Internet?
LF thinks they don't. He adds it's not rare to see a subtitled series on the Internet before they're broadcast on TV.
VC's next question relates to the Providência Cautelar or Injunction but the Judge objects on the basis that it is not relevant, the main action being the present hearing.
VC now alludes to the watermark, the documentary having been sold on the international market.
VC - Did the international sales concern TV channels or the DVD market? Was there edition and sale of DVDs in foreign countries?
LF says he doesn't remember.
VC - Who bought the documentary?
LF says that various TV channels bought it.
VC - Was the DVD protected by a watermark?
LF says it was normal that it was.
VC answers a question by the Judge about the watermark and explains that the original documentary is supposed to have a bandwidth (a signal processing)
b) Gonçalo Amaral's lawyer, Dr. Santos de Oliveira.
SO - As General Director, you had to have knowledge concerning the distribution of the DVD.
LF - Yes.
SO - Weren't you supposed also to know how many copies were distributed?
LF says he doesn't remember.
SO - You knew how the DVD was created; shouldn't you also know what kind of protection was applied to the copies?
LF says he didn't have to know that.
SO - Could some alteration be made without your knowing about it?
LF says "no".
SO - Did you know whether there was protection against pirate copying?
LF says that practically there's always a way to bypass any protection.
2) The Plaintiffs' lawyer, Dra Isabel Duarte.
ID - Where was the watermark?
LF says it was in the DVDs sold in foreign countries.
ID - Which countries?
LF says he doesn't know, since he didn't sell them, he doesn't remember. He adds that the only entity that commercialised the DVD was the CdM.
The Judge asks if the unsold DVDs were destroyed.
LF says "yes", all those which weren't sold were destroyed.
The Judge asks the witness how he knows that.
LF - I was told so.
The Judge – Who told you?
LF - The CdM.
The Judge - Is this a normal procedure?
LF - It is.
The Judge - When there's no further expectation of selling additional copies, then, before destroying them, do they let you know that they are about to destroy them?
LF - Yes, the CdM announced it beforehand.
Evidence ends.
Note
This witness previously took the stand in the Providência Cautelar (Temporary Injunction) hearings.
Civil Court decision in the Injunction
http://www.mccannfiles.com/id339.html
Luis Froes
(Film Industry Executive)
By Anne Guedes of the UK Justice Forum
Libel trial McCann v Gonçalo Amaral - Day 8 Witness No 2
The testimony as it happened...
(05.11.2013, 2:45pm) Luis Froes is a Partner at Outsider Films Ltd. He was General Manager at Valentim de Carvalho Multimédia between April 2008 and September 2012, in which period the Amaral documentary was produced. His evidence relates to the background in which the documentary was produced.
Please note the following:
• VCFilmes S.A. is the Company which produced the documentary Maddie: The Truth of the Lie based on the book by Dr Gonçalo Amaral (GA) and directed by Carlos Coelho da Silva.
• The rights of edition and distribution of this documentary in DVD format were ceded to VC Multimédia S.A., this Company therefore being their representative as regards the exploration or commercialisation of the rights of television broadcast or transmission of this documentary in foreign countries.
• The reproduction and editing were authorised by Valentim de Carvalho Multimédia to the company Presslivre - Imprensa Livre, S.A., owner of the newspaper Correio da Manhã (CdM) by means of a contract established between both parties, under which terms, the DVDs, their covers and packaging would be produced on account, by order and under the responsibility of Presslivre, to be distributed and commercialised jointly with said newspaper.
The Judge Maria Emília de Avillez Melo e Castro asks the witness if he recalls the details of the distribution contract concerning the DVD.
LF doesn't remember.
The Judge – Who signed the contract?
LF says he did, but he doesn't know about the international contracts.
1) The Defence lawyers.
a) Valentim de Carvalho’s (VC) lawyer, Dr. Henrique Costa Pinto, is the first to question the witness.
VC - Did you take part in the Providência Cautelar (injunction judgement) hearings?
LF - Yes, but I don't remember when I took the stand.
VC refers to the DVD audiovisual adaptation of GA's book which was commercialised at the end of 2009. Was it edited by Valentim de Carvalho?
LF - Yes
VC - Who edited the DVD version which went on sale?
LF - VC Multimédia distributed. I don't know who edited.
VC - I'm talking of the copies of the DVD.
LF - VC Multimédia edited them.
VC - Wasn't the Correio da Manhã in charge of them?
LF – They had to be distributed.
VC - Who commercialised them?
LF - For me, commercialising or distributing is the same thing. The unique contract that existed was through the CdM.
The Court Clerk is asked to show the contract to the witness.
VC - The edition was made by the CdM.
LF - It was the CdM who sold the DVD to the public.
VC - Did VC commercialise the DVD?
LF says that for him "editing" is "editing" (montar)
(Note: the Portuguese "editar" that has been translated "edit" means establish the reproduction, publication and diffusion of a work. The Portuguese, as other languages, uses "montar" for "editing" a film).
VC - Who created the cover, the packaging?
LF says it was VC Multimédia .
VC - Then you've not looked at the contract? Do you have an issue with Valentim de Carvalho? In Court?
LF says he has.
The Judge – Are you the executing or the executed one?
LF says the action is against VC.
LF says that there is a problem of definition: VC produced a documentary, and then looked for the best way to distribute it and found CdM.
VC - Who created the cover and the packaging? Who was responsible for this?
LF says he doesn't remember. Normally the producer would do that, but in this case it might have not happened this way.
VC - What about the silver seals with the registration number?
LF doesn't know.
VC - Do you know how many copies were made?
LF says he knows.
VC - Do you know how many copies were destroyed?
LF says that all copies left over were destroyed.
VC - Was there a new edition of the DVD?
LF thinks "no".
VC – The documentary appeared with subtitles on the Internet.
LF says that everything, all sorts of things appear on the Web.
VC – But with subtitles?
LF doesn't remember.
VC makes a request to suspend this witness' testimony without prejudicing the continuity of the trial, because the witness requires to study the documents before being questioned further. Only Dra Duarte objects. The Judge tells the witness that he must return to give further evidence on the 27th November at 9:30 am.
VC requests that the examination of the witness continues but on another subject.
VC - Don't you remember seeing that documentary on the Web?
LF says he already stated in Court in January 2010 that he didn't.
VC - Do you think it could be that documentary?
LF says that there is no control over the release of films on the Internet.
VC - Did VC Multimédia already have the film subtitled?
LF answers "no".
VC - Did VC Multimédia use a system to prevent pirating on the Internet?
LF thinks they don't. He adds it's not rare to see a subtitled series on the Internet before they're broadcast on TV.
VC's next question relates to the Providência Cautelar or Injunction but the Judge objects on the basis that it is not relevant, the main action being the present hearing.
VC now alludes to the watermark, the documentary having been sold on the international market.
VC - Did the international sales concern TV channels or the DVD market? Was there edition and sale of DVDs in foreign countries?
LF says he doesn't remember.
VC - Who bought the documentary?
LF says that various TV channels bought it.
VC - Was the DVD protected by a watermark?
LF says it was normal that it was.
VC answers a question by the Judge about the watermark and explains that the original documentary is supposed to have a bandwidth (a signal processing)
b) Gonçalo Amaral's lawyer, Dr. Santos de Oliveira.
SO - As General Director, you had to have knowledge concerning the distribution of the DVD.
LF - Yes.
SO - Weren't you supposed also to know how many copies were distributed?
LF says he doesn't remember.
SO - You knew how the DVD was created; shouldn't you also know what kind of protection was applied to the copies?
LF says he didn't have to know that.
SO - Could some alteration be made without your knowing about it?
LF says "no".
SO - Did you know whether there was protection against pirate copying?
LF says that practically there's always a way to bypass any protection.
2) The Plaintiffs' lawyer, Dra Isabel Duarte.
ID - Where was the watermark?
LF says it was in the DVDs sold in foreign countries.
ID - Which countries?
LF says he doesn't know, since he didn't sell them, he doesn't remember. He adds that the only entity that commercialised the DVD was the CdM.
The Judge asks if the unsold DVDs were destroyed.
LF says "yes", all those which weren't sold were destroyed.
The Judge asks the witness how he knows that.
LF - I was told so.
The Judge – Who told you?
LF - The CdM.
The Judge - Is this a normal procedure?
LF - It is.
The Judge - When there's no further expectation of selling additional copies, then, before destroying them, do they let you know that they are about to destroy them?
LF - Yes, the CdM announced it beforehand.
Evidence ends.
Note
This witness previously took the stand in the Providência Cautelar (Temporary Injunction) hearings.
Civil Court decision in the Injunction
http://www.mccannfiles.com/id339.html
Monday, 11 November 2013
McCann v Amaral (05 Nov 2013) Mário Sena Lopes Transcript
Libel Trial Day 8
Mário Sena Lopes
(owner and manager of Publinédita, a Literary Agency and Publishing Company, based in Lisbon )
By Anne Guedes of the UK Justice Forum
Libel trial McCann v Gonçalo Amaral - Day 8 Witness No 1
A request is made to the Judge to disclose before the last session of the trial (27 November 2013), as to whether the plaintiffs will, on that day, be permitted to take the stand as plaintiffs (not as witnesses, therefore they do not have to be notified). There were no objections.
Another request is made and allowed by the Judge to postpone the testimony of Dr Paulo Sargento, whose absence today is justified. Again, there were no objections.
Publishers Guerra & Paz (G&P) lawyer, Dra Fatima Esteves, informs the Judge that she will no longer be calling witness, Mr Marreiros.
The testimony as it happened...
(05.11.2013, 9:45 am) Mário Sena Lopes greets the public when entering the court room and will greet them again before leaving it. He is the owner and manager of Publinédita, a Literary Agency and Publishing Company, based in Lisbon. From 2007 to 2009 he was Editorial Director for the publisher Guerra & Paz and was responsible for the Gonçalo Amaral book, The Truth of the Lie. He remains as Gonçalo Amaral’s literary agent.
The Judge asks the witness whether he has knowledge of the trial. He replies that he is unaware of specific details. He adds that, following the publication of the Amaral book, he is no longer involved with it.
1) The defence G&P's lawyer, Dra Fatima Esteves, is the first to question the witness.
GP - Do you remember what the normal selling price of the book was when it was launched?
SL thinks it was €13.30
GP - asks what was the price in Brazil.
SL G&P did not market the book in Brazil nor made any approaches to have it published there. Some of the publishers have head offices in both Portugal and Brazil, but that is not the case with Guerra & Paz.
GP - How was the book distributed?
SL says there are two methods but in this case it was done through the Correio da Manha. The books were delivered to the bookshops. The unsold copies are sent back to the publisher who must accept them without invoicing.
GP - asks what are the reasons for the returns.
SL there are many, like the lack of public response, too many copies, contrary publicity in the media, unexpected social factors.
GP - What about the defective copies?
SL there are always damaged copies. They are destroyed either by the publisher or by the distributor. They are of no benefit to the authors
GP - Other books were written about the McCann case. Have you knowledge of them?
SL thinks there are quite a few, such as, "A culpa dos McCann" (The Guilt of the McCanns) and the Kate McCann book, “Madeleine”.
2) The Plaintiff’s lawyer, Dra Isabel Duarte.
ID - alluding to the successive 12 editions of the book which she lists, asks the witness if he has an idea of the number of returns, either because the copy was defective or had been damaged.
SL says that G&P, in terms of editions and copies, takes good care to protect the rights of the authors. He adds that at the beginning there are more requests than copies provided. This changes with the final edition.
ID - What about the books which were controlled by the injunction?
SL there is always distributed books that escape an injunction, but most of the copies were delivered to the pursuers' lawyer, namely (Dra Isabel Duarte). He says he couldn't guarantee that all were delivered, but can guarantee that no copy remained at the publisher or at the distributor.
ID - About the sale price, are you certain of what you answered?
SL says he is.
ID - Wasn't the sale price lowered in the case of this book?
SL says that for most books that doesn't happen. It happens sometimes when the book has no success or when there's a motive to promote it. He doesn't think it is good practice.
ID - What likely happened in the case of this book?
SL nothing of this kind happened.
ID - Therefore the sale price was around €13. What about the hypermarkets?
SL states the hypermarkets don’t normally promote books to the public and adds that the 15,000 copies of the first edition were sold in the same week. He adds that all editions are referred to in the following ones.
The Judge asks whether the witness knows the percentage of returns among the published books.
SL doesn't know.
Evidence ends.
Note:
Mário Sena Lopes was a witness in the matter of the temporary Injunction granted in respect of the McCanns v G Amaral & Others in relation to the publication of the Amaral book, The Truth of the Lie. The decision for which was delivered on 18 February 2010.
Mário Rui da Silva Sena Lopes, editorial manager for the publisher from July 2007 to September 2009, clarified questions regarding the choice of date to launch the book, foreign editions and destruction of books; he stated that negotiations for the book began in the first trimester [quarter] of 2008. http://www.mccannfiles.com/id339.html
Mário Sena Lopes
(owner and manager of Publinédita, a Literary Agency and Publishing Company, based in Lisbon )
By Anne Guedes of the UK Justice Forum
Libel trial McCann v Gonçalo Amaral - Day 8 Witness No 1
A request is made to the Judge to disclose before the last session of the trial (27 November 2013), as to whether the plaintiffs will, on that day, be permitted to take the stand as plaintiffs (not as witnesses, therefore they do not have to be notified). There were no objections.
Another request is made and allowed by the Judge to postpone the testimony of Dr Paulo Sargento, whose absence today is justified. Again, there were no objections.
Publishers Guerra & Paz (G&P) lawyer, Dra Fatima Esteves, informs the Judge that she will no longer be calling witness, Mr Marreiros.
The testimony as it happened...
(05.11.2013, 9:45 am) Mário Sena Lopes greets the public when entering the court room and will greet them again before leaving it. He is the owner and manager of Publinédita, a Literary Agency and Publishing Company, based in Lisbon. From 2007 to 2009 he was Editorial Director for the publisher Guerra & Paz and was responsible for the Gonçalo Amaral book, The Truth of the Lie. He remains as Gonçalo Amaral’s literary agent.
The Judge asks the witness whether he has knowledge of the trial. He replies that he is unaware of specific details. He adds that, following the publication of the Amaral book, he is no longer involved with it.
1) The defence G&P's lawyer, Dra Fatima Esteves, is the first to question the witness.
GP - Do you remember what the normal selling price of the book was when it was launched?
SL thinks it was €13.30
GP - asks what was the price in Brazil.
SL G&P did not market the book in Brazil nor made any approaches to have it published there. Some of the publishers have head offices in both Portugal and Brazil, but that is not the case with Guerra & Paz.
GP - How was the book distributed?
SL says there are two methods but in this case it was done through the Correio da Manha. The books were delivered to the bookshops. The unsold copies are sent back to the publisher who must accept them without invoicing.
GP - asks what are the reasons for the returns.
SL there are many, like the lack of public response, too many copies, contrary publicity in the media, unexpected social factors.
GP - What about the defective copies?
SL there are always damaged copies. They are destroyed either by the publisher or by the distributor. They are of no benefit to the authors
GP - Other books were written about the McCann case. Have you knowledge of them?
SL thinks there are quite a few, such as, "A culpa dos McCann" (The Guilt of the McCanns) and the Kate McCann book, “Madeleine”.
2) The Plaintiff’s lawyer, Dra Isabel Duarte.
ID - alluding to the successive 12 editions of the book which she lists, asks the witness if he has an idea of the number of returns, either because the copy was defective or had been damaged.
SL says that G&P, in terms of editions and copies, takes good care to protect the rights of the authors. He adds that at the beginning there are more requests than copies provided. This changes with the final edition.
ID - What about the books which were controlled by the injunction?
SL there is always distributed books that escape an injunction, but most of the copies were delivered to the pursuers' lawyer, namely (Dra Isabel Duarte). He says he couldn't guarantee that all were delivered, but can guarantee that no copy remained at the publisher or at the distributor.
ID - About the sale price, are you certain of what you answered?
SL says he is.
ID - Wasn't the sale price lowered in the case of this book?
SL says that for most books that doesn't happen. It happens sometimes when the book has no success or when there's a motive to promote it. He doesn't think it is good practice.
ID - What likely happened in the case of this book?
SL nothing of this kind happened.
ID - Therefore the sale price was around €13. What about the hypermarkets?
SL states the hypermarkets don’t normally promote books to the public and adds that the 15,000 copies of the first edition were sold in the same week. He adds that all editions are referred to in the following ones.
The Judge asks whether the witness knows the percentage of returns among the published books.
SL doesn't know.
Evidence ends.
Note:
Mário Sena Lopes was a witness in the matter of the temporary Injunction granted in respect of the McCanns v G Amaral & Others in relation to the publication of the Amaral book, The Truth of the Lie. The decision for which was delivered on 18 February 2010.
Mário Rui da Silva Sena Lopes, editorial manager for the publisher from July 2007 to September 2009, clarified questions regarding the choice of date to launch the book, foreign editions and destruction of books; he stated that negotiations for the book began in the first trimester [quarter] of 2008. http://www.mccannfiles.com/id339.html
Wednesday, 6 November 2013
McCann v Amaral (08 Oct 2013) Francisco Moita Flores Transcript
Libel Trial Day 7
Francisco Moita Flores
(Retired Polícia Judiciária (PJ) Inspector and writer)
By Anne Guedes of the UK Justice Forum
Libel trial McCann v Gonçalo Amaral - Day 7 Witness No 5
The testimony as it happened...
(08.10.2013, 2:45pm) Francisco Moita Flores is a retired Polícia Judiciária (PJ) Inspector, he is also a writer.
He is the only witness who has greeted the public before sitting in the witness chair. This was repeated at the end of the session when the witness turned towards the public and again acknowledged them with a smile and a slight nod.
The Judge asks the witness what sort of contact he has with the McCann process.
MF says he has known Gonçalo Amaral since the time they were both in the PJ. He says they are more or less contemporaneous; although GA is younger than him.
The Judge asks whether apart from professional relations they are friends.
MF says they know each other, he says they never went to each other's home.
The Judge asks if the witness knows the McCanns.
MF says "no".
The Judge asks MF if he wrote a book on this case.
MF says he didn't, but commented on the case many times, particularly on TV.
The Judge – Have you read the book?
MF says he did.
The Judge – Have you watched the documentary?
MF says he didn't.
The Judge – Then you were a commentator on TV and also wrote chronicles?
MF answers "yes".
1) Defence lawyers
a) Dr Santos de Oliveira, GA's lawyer, is the first to question the witness.
SO – What reason did you have to comment on this case?
MF says that first it is his job. He does it professionally because he has experience of being a police inspector and has connections with the police. In this particular case he says that very early he claimed that the police were making errors.
SO – Why?
MF Because they should have considered all the possible hypotheses instead of restricting the investigation to the prefabricated idea of abduction.
SO – When did you read the book?
MF says he only read it after it was published. He adds that he first read the book and then read the criminal process report.
SO – Through those readings do you consider that the "death" theory...
The Judge overrules, she says the questions cannot be commented upon.
SO – When you became aware of the book and the Report have you heard...
The Judge overrules.
SO protests’ arguing the issue is to consider the conclusions. He asks about the "death" theory.
MF says it is more likely that the child died. And he adds it is impossible that someone passed through the window with a child. He says the abduction theory then doesn't make sense. He observes that there are many possibilities, it's perfectly admissible for instance that the child went out to search for her parents. If the child died, it could have been outside of the flat or in the flat. But, he says, the disappearance never could have happened through the window, he insists that it is essential to understand that it is technically, humanly, impossible. The witness concludes affirming that all the hypotheses are possible, except for the abduction “through that window”.
b) G&P's lawyer, Dra Fatima Esteves.
GP – Is it possible to determine a "before" and an "after" the book's publication, in a media perspective?
MF says he was in Greece at the time. He learnt about the disappearance of Madeleine McCann through CNN or Sky News. He returned to Portugal a few days later and doesn't remember having ever seen such a large media circus. It was so enormous that it lasted for weeks and even months. The witness recalls how the parents were filmed every time they went out. When they were made arguidos, he claimed that they should be well treated. Eventually they could be blamed for having neglected their children. Many TV programmes were done. He says the book was published in the continuity of chronicles, interviews, documentaries that this case elicited: the witness statement of an inspector.
GP – What about the documentary?
MF only remembers that someone talked to him about it, nothing more.
GP – Do you think that, because of the book, they stopped investigating the case?
MF says he was perplexed when the case was shelved. He feels he has to say that the case was very well investigated. If the Public Ministry doesn't reopen the case, it's because no relevant piece of evidence has been brought. The witness suggests that the case suffered carnival aspects and early errors, the biggest being not to have investigated the parents. Life shows us that there are parents who mistreat their children and this eventuality could not be properly discarded.
GP – Do you know about the note sent to the media by the PGR (Procuradoria da Republica)?
MF says the PJ cannot do diligences without authorisation from the Public Ministry. He insists very much on this.
GP – What about the Scotland Yard rogatory letter?
MF says that what SY requested was in the criminal process, such as the checking of cell-phone communications. Recreate everything? Yes, I suppose everything can be done again only to reach the same conclusion. The witness remarks that SY only contemplated the abduction hypothesis. What if for example the little girl went out, fell and wasn't found? He qualifies the restricted vision (of abduction) as "prophetic and dogmatic" and observes that the police knew that what was crucial was finding evidence.
GP – Are there some books published on this?
MF says in Portugal and in the UK many books are published on relevant cases.
GP – Cases with media coverage are a subject matter for books?
MF says that the majority of the authors are journalists. He adds that he himself writes about crime and refers to the many books in which he contributes his opinion on cases.
2) Lawyer for the Plaintiffs in substitution of Dra Isabel Duarte, Dr Ricardo Afonso.
RA – When you said that the police had committed an error in investigating only the abduction hypothesis, what do you base that assumption on?
MF answers that it is based on his own experience. Experience says that the main suspects are closest to the victim and that the solution is often the simpler one. He adds that an abduction assumption cannot be discarded, but should not be the first or only one to be examined.
RA – Gonçalo Amaral says that on the 4 May 2007, all the hypotheses were taken in consideration.
MF Yes, at that time.
RA – Whom would you point to?
MF Nobody in particular.
RA – Why were you perplexed when the process was shelved?
MF I found that the contradictions by the people who had access to the McCann apartment were not explored sufficiently. It was a fundamental error not to isolate them, check who had access to the apartment and collect the data relating to their phone calls in order to clarify the discrepancies in their statements. If it had been done, we wouldn't be here, involved in a trial on freedom of opinion.
Evidence ends.
Note
Witness for the Defence, Hernâni Carvalho, was scheduled to give evidence on the 10th October. . The Judge asked Defence lawyer Dr Santos de Oliveira, if he wished to give up this witness to which he replied that he doesn’t. The Judge then dictated to the clerk a note of the fine this witness will have to pay for not having presented himself before the Court (if a valid justification is provided, the fine will be set aside).
Francisco Moita Flores
(Retired Polícia Judiciária (PJ) Inspector and writer)
By Anne Guedes of the UK Justice Forum
Libel trial McCann v Gonçalo Amaral - Day 7 Witness No 5
The testimony as it happened...
(08.10.2013, 2:45pm) Francisco Moita Flores is a retired Polícia Judiciária (PJ) Inspector, he is also a writer.
He is the only witness who has greeted the public before sitting in the witness chair. This was repeated at the end of the session when the witness turned towards the public and again acknowledged them with a smile and a slight nod.
The Judge asks the witness what sort of contact he has with the McCann process.
MF says he has known Gonçalo Amaral since the time they were both in the PJ. He says they are more or less contemporaneous; although GA is younger than him.
The Judge asks whether apart from professional relations they are friends.
MF says they know each other, he says they never went to each other's home.
The Judge asks if the witness knows the McCanns.
MF says "no".
The Judge asks MF if he wrote a book on this case.
MF says he didn't, but commented on the case many times, particularly on TV.
The Judge – Have you read the book?
MF says he did.
The Judge – Have you watched the documentary?
MF says he didn't.
The Judge – Then you were a commentator on TV and also wrote chronicles?
MF answers "yes".
1) Defence lawyers
a) Dr Santos de Oliveira, GA's lawyer, is the first to question the witness.
SO – What reason did you have to comment on this case?
MF says that first it is his job. He does it professionally because he has experience of being a police inspector and has connections with the police. In this particular case he says that very early he claimed that the police were making errors.
SO – Why?
MF Because they should have considered all the possible hypotheses instead of restricting the investigation to the prefabricated idea of abduction.
SO – When did you read the book?
MF says he only read it after it was published. He adds that he first read the book and then read the criminal process report.
SO – Through those readings do you consider that the "death" theory...
The Judge overrules, she says the questions cannot be commented upon.
SO – When you became aware of the book and the Report have you heard...
The Judge overrules.
SO protests’ arguing the issue is to consider the conclusions. He asks about the "death" theory.
MF says it is more likely that the child died. And he adds it is impossible that someone passed through the window with a child. He says the abduction theory then doesn't make sense. He observes that there are many possibilities, it's perfectly admissible for instance that the child went out to search for her parents. If the child died, it could have been outside of the flat or in the flat. But, he says, the disappearance never could have happened through the window, he insists that it is essential to understand that it is technically, humanly, impossible. The witness concludes affirming that all the hypotheses are possible, except for the abduction “through that window”.
b) G&P's lawyer, Dra Fatima Esteves.
GP – Is it possible to determine a "before" and an "after" the book's publication, in a media perspective?
MF says he was in Greece at the time. He learnt about the disappearance of Madeleine McCann through CNN or Sky News. He returned to Portugal a few days later and doesn't remember having ever seen such a large media circus. It was so enormous that it lasted for weeks and even months. The witness recalls how the parents were filmed every time they went out. When they were made arguidos, he claimed that they should be well treated. Eventually they could be blamed for having neglected their children. Many TV programmes were done. He says the book was published in the continuity of chronicles, interviews, documentaries that this case elicited: the witness statement of an inspector.
GP – What about the documentary?
MF only remembers that someone talked to him about it, nothing more.
GP – Do you think that, because of the book, they stopped investigating the case?
MF says he was perplexed when the case was shelved. He feels he has to say that the case was very well investigated. If the Public Ministry doesn't reopen the case, it's because no relevant piece of evidence has been brought. The witness suggests that the case suffered carnival aspects and early errors, the biggest being not to have investigated the parents. Life shows us that there are parents who mistreat their children and this eventuality could not be properly discarded.
GP – Do you know about the note sent to the media by the PGR (Procuradoria da Republica)?
MF says the PJ cannot do diligences without authorisation from the Public Ministry. He insists very much on this.
GP – What about the Scotland Yard rogatory letter?
MF says that what SY requested was in the criminal process, such as the checking of cell-phone communications. Recreate everything? Yes, I suppose everything can be done again only to reach the same conclusion. The witness remarks that SY only contemplated the abduction hypothesis. What if for example the little girl went out, fell and wasn't found? He qualifies the restricted vision (of abduction) as "prophetic and dogmatic" and observes that the police knew that what was crucial was finding evidence.
GP – Are there some books published on this?
MF says in Portugal and in the UK many books are published on relevant cases.
GP – Cases with media coverage are a subject matter for books?
MF says that the majority of the authors are journalists. He adds that he himself writes about crime and refers to the many books in which he contributes his opinion on cases.
2) Lawyer for the Plaintiffs in substitution of Dra Isabel Duarte, Dr Ricardo Afonso.
RA – When you said that the police had committed an error in investigating only the abduction hypothesis, what do you base that assumption on?
MF answers that it is based on his own experience. Experience says that the main suspects are closest to the victim and that the solution is often the simpler one. He adds that an abduction assumption cannot be discarded, but should not be the first or only one to be examined.
RA – Gonçalo Amaral says that on the 4 May 2007, all the hypotheses were taken in consideration.
MF Yes, at that time.
RA – Whom would you point to?
MF Nobody in particular.
RA – Why were you perplexed when the process was shelved?
MF I found that the contradictions by the people who had access to the McCann apartment were not explored sufficiently. It was a fundamental error not to isolate them, check who had access to the apartment and collect the data relating to their phone calls in order to clarify the discrepancies in their statements. If it had been done, we wouldn't be here, involved in a trial on freedom of opinion.
Evidence ends.
Note
Witness for the Defence, Hernâni Carvalho, was scheduled to give evidence on the 10th October. . The Judge asked Defence lawyer Dr Santos de Oliveira, if he wished to give up this witness to which he replied that he doesn’t. The Judge then dictated to the clerk a note of the fine this witness will have to pay for not having presented himself before the Court (if a valid justification is provided, the fine will be set aside).
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
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)
Manuel Catarino
(Editor in Chief, Correio da Manhã)
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.
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.
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)
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.
Previous Transcripts: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.
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)
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
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)
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.
II
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.
IV
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.
V
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."
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)
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)