Madeleine McCann: Amaral’s Book Banned
GONCALO Amaral’s book on the Madeleine McCann case, The Truth Of The Lie, has been banned.
The McCanns’ Spokesman Clarence Mitchell said the couple were “absolutely delighted“.
A judge at Lisbon’s main civil court outlawed any further sales or publications of the book.
Says Clarence Mitchell:
“Kate and Gerry McCann are absolutely delighted that the judge in Portugal has done the right thing by granting this injunction.”
Copyright for the book and film must also be handed over to the McCanns’ lawyer.
It bans him from repeating any of his claims about the McCann family and applies to a TV programme he produced earlier this year.
Mr Amaral, the former policeman, has to make it so that all unsold copies of his tome are removed from points of sale and distribution across Europe or face a 1,000 euro-a-day (£877) fine.
If he can find them…
Mr Amaral says he does not believe the McCanns’ account that Madeleine was kidnapped. But he was not paid to believe - he was paid to discover the facts. And he failed.
And instead of facts, we got more speculation. All we know is that McCanns are innocent; the police have proven no crime too place; there are no suspects; and Madeleine McCann is misisng.
Posted: 9th, September 2009 | In: Gallery, Key Posts, Madeleine McCann, Media Comments (90) | Follow the Comments on our RSS feed: RSS 2.0 | TrackBack | Permalink
Comments
- Cheryl on Susan Boyle: World Divided Over SuBo And Lady Susan
- June on Susan Boyle: World Divided Over SuBo And Lady Susan
- a on X Factor: Jedward, John & Edward Grimes, Are Voted Out At Last
- Anorak on X Factor Does Pride Watch: Cheryl Cole Patronises Joe McElderry
- davie bassest on X Factor Does Pride Watch: Cheryl Cole Patronises Joe McElderry
September 12th, 2009 at 10:45 pm
Yes and here’s another view from the ‘Glasgow’ crew
Bottom line is that you either believe there is a shady deal going on. Or you don’t.
If you do, it’s interesting, if you don’t, well either it’s not interesting or it’s interesting reading the barking theories
And either way, it’s all barking really. Woof
September 12th, 2009 at 9:28 pm
WOW! Ninety-One posts and Maria, Stig and Garth are all back on stage, we only need the “Glasgow” Brigade and it’ll just be like old times.
September 12th, 2009 at 6:15 pm
Rockhopper: The deficiency in the DNA ‘evidence’ is so great that it would not serve in a civil case because it wouldn’t even come within the definition of ‘balance of probabilities’.
The DNA relates to only 17 cells found in the hire car. Such a sample is utterly minute and can be deposited by a person just brushing their fingertip lightly against something. Since many items of Madeline’s were transferred in the car when The McCanns moved to the villa, those 17 cells could have come from one of those items - if they were Madeleine’s cells in the first place, but even that could not be determined as the sample was too degraded to even make that determination.
In essence, there is no DNA ‘evidence’, it is a myth that has been used to sell newspapers.
Madeleine-McCann-Portuguese-detectives-lied-to-Gerry-McCann-about-DNA-evidence.html
AZ: Why is that people who cite Kate’s 40 unanswered questions always fail to mention that Gerry answered questions put to him? Furthermore, they also fail to point out that some of the questions were based on out and out lies by the PJ.
I have always held the view that Kate’s refusal to answer questions was probably a consequence of her becoming furious when it became obvious to her that the PJ were obviously not looking for Madeline but were devoting their efforts to proving that she and Gerry were responsible for Madeleine’s disappearance. It may well be case that her lawyer, Carlos Pinto, advised her not to answer the questions. If that was the case, she would have been a fool to ignore the advice of her legal counsel.
“Kate began by replying all the questions, but when she was made an arguida, she stopped talking. She went silent, in the company of her lawyer,”
September 12th, 2009 at 5:32 pm
Garth, good to see you back in the world of fact and fantasies!
September 12th, 2009 at 5:29 pm
Chesire Set, thanks for the clarification. Have to wait to find out now if the Portugal Courts will rule that under the Freedom of Press it is permissible to libel or slander someone or in anyway interfer with the ongoing search for a missing child with the book/story they printed and claim as their own.
Have there been any cases similar to this one taken before the Courts in Portugal in the past and ruled on?
September 12th, 2009 at 2:22 pm
…or even ‘their’ story
September 12th, 2009 at 2:21 pm
80 Cheryl says:
September 11th, 2009 at 10:55 pm
Interesting, Amaral isn’t appealing he is having someone else do it Not willing to put his money where his mouth is!
————————————————————————————————–
Cheryl
The publishers ‘bought’ the story from Amaral and went to print. Amaral would not appeal it, only they can as its ‘thier’ story now
September 12th, 2009 at 9:41 am
That post was so contentious that you knew they wouldn’t post it twice. Double censorship
September 12th, 2009 at 2:01 am
I’m sorry but this is not an open debate… I tried to post something here but unfortunatly was rejected by the moderator….
This is how the McCanns get away… people are afraid of them.
They waste money in controling the media, if they were saying the true then that money would save millions of children all over the world…
I already know this will not be posted…. thanks
September 12th, 2009 at 12:42 am
The line between freedom of expression and libel is always a difficult one to draw. The McCanns have certainly succeeded in drawing the line where they wanted it to be when it came to the press. Press freedom is a crucial principle in a free society, but papers can, and do, stray into libel and have to pay for it if challenged. Whether or not the same will apply with this book is a different matter. The truth of what has been written normally has to be shown. The question is, can GA show that what he wrote is true when his own police force came to a different conclusion?
As you say, AZ, interesting times ahead! Who can tell?
Scotfree, yes, I’ve always assumed it was a block of questions, or that the lawyer simply said, “Say nothing at all for the moment!” As you say, we don’t really know what the situation was.
Can anyone clarify….. Are we assuming that any action taken against Amaral by the McCanns for alleged libel is separate from this business about banning the book? Did the McCanns bring an action aimed at getting the book banned, and, if so, are they also continuing with the more traditional libel action?
The most interesting thing about the ban is not whether or not it will ultimately be upheld or permanent, but that it demonstrates precisely what a Portuguese court thinks of the book, or at the very least, it shows that the court thinks there’s a good chance it could be shown to be libellous. Let’s not forget that the relevant Portuguese authorities in each case have :
(a) dismissed Amaral from the case in a humiliating sort of “sacking” and, obviously, in the full glare of publicity.
(b) found him guilty of perjury in a court of law, in relation to another of his cases.
(c) issued this ban on his book which suggests the McCanns are guilty of very grave crimes in relation to the disappearance of their child.
What on earth could these Portuguese authorities be scared of when it comes to Kate and Gerry McCann, two docs from Leicester? Surely we must at least consider seriously the idea that the decisions to take these three actions were well-founded and sensible and in each case were taken in good faith by the relevant, competent Portuguese authority, without external pressure and simply based on available information?
(Surely we can’t be sure it’s all the work of M16??!!)
September 11th, 2009 at 10:55 pm
Interesting, Amaral isn’t appealing he is having someone else do it Not willing to put his money where his mouth is!
September 11th, 2009 at 7:21 pm
Well spotted, Bat E Bird.
Translation from Correio da Manhã, 11.09.2009:
“The editor that publishes the book ‘Maddie: The Truth about the Lie’, Guerra & Paz, has informed that it is going to contest the judicial prohibition that involves Gonçalo Amaral’s book, after having received the notification this Friday.
The action that was filed against the book includes the prohibition of selling the book’s edition rights for foreign publications, as well as the impossibility to cite, analyse, give an opinion or interviews about the thesis that is defended by Gonçalo Amaral.
Guerra & Paz defends that these restrictions are “an attempt against the freedom of expression and the freedom of contract, hurting the most elementary rights that are consecrated by the Portuguese Constitution”.
In the same press release, the editor names the decision as “unjustified and disputable”, taking into account the international application of the decision.
“It is only out of respect to the institutions and due to our will to contribute to their prestige, that we obey this arbitrary position that we will contest in the Portuguese courts and, if necessary, at super-national instances”.”
GAME ON!!!!!…..???
September 11th, 2009 at 6:37 pm
News from Portugal is:
Guerra & Paz to contest injunction
http://diariodigital.sapo.pt/news.asp?section_id=188&id_news=409206
September 11th, 2009 at 5:14 pm
Maria, let’s recall Amaral accused Kate McCann of harming her daughter and her reaction of outrage to him to even suggest that. It had been reported he offered her a ‘deal’ if she’d admit she did - I never have been certain if that report was fact or fiction. However, once you are aware you are a possible suspect one should not open their mouth without a lawyer present to tell you what you can or cannot respond to, no matter how innocent you are. He has been hell bent on blaming her for her daughter’s disappearance from the beginning and imo is not a man to be trusted nor has ethics. I can’t fathom a lawyer permitting her to answer even the most innocent of questions
I’ve seen too many cases with cops with tunnel vision, can’t spell the word ethics and the prison door slams behind an innocent person.
September 11th, 2009 at 4:42 pm
Maria not wanting to get into a great debate over the questions that were left unanswered, I do take your point that a member of a very expensive legal team told Kate not to answer them. As you said it would be very foolish not to have taken that advice, but I would ask this what was it about these questions that prompted their lawyer to tell them to answer some questions but not these particular ones? We have been over the years led to believe that this could have been a block of questions standing on their own in part of the interview but no one has substantiated that so they could have been scattered here there and yonder in the interview.
September 11th, 2009 at 4:19 pm
Maria
In answer to your first point, there was I think an inquiry into the Diana/Fayed business and basically Fayed’s theory was thrown out. In particular he claimed that Diana and Dodi were engaged but none of Diana’s friends knew about this (or any supposed pregnancy) which was unthinkable because Diana would have told these people.
As other posters have pointed out, the standard of proof is different in the civil courts. For example the 1990s criminal prosecution against OJ Simpson was unsuccessful but the victims’ family had some success in the civil courts.
Okay that was in America but it demonstrates the point that a lack of criminal charges or convictions does not mean QED in a civil court.
Some people have suggested that Amaral is in fact quite a clever man and he held back pieces of info (or maybe introduced some disinformation) when making his documentary. But if he loses the civil action or bottles it then that IMO would put paid to this theory.
I’m in two minds about the “40 questions”, many people think that only the guilty refuse to answer police questions although Colin Stagg gave “no comment” interviews in the Rachel Nickell enquiry and ultimately it turned out he was innocent and someone completely different was the guilty party. Good job the senior cop in that case didn’t write a book called “100 Reasons Why Stagg Did It.” I don’t think the McCanns have ever cited the Stagg case as an example of how cops can sometimes get it wrong, which is surprising.
So anyway I think we are entering a very interesting phase, will Amaral fight on, and if so will he win or lose? There is always an element of roulette in legal proceedings so who knows?
September 11th, 2009 at 4:16 pm
Maria - I don’t think that Amaral is the slightest bit concerned about any potential hurt he might be causing the McCanns - his sole purpose seems to be self-promotion and maybe a dig at those who removed him from the case for being so useless….
you couldn’t write the book because of your conscience - I don’t believe Amaral has one….
September 11th, 2009 at 4:06 pm
Maria, this case often reminds me of the JoBenet Ramsey case with those who thought the parents were involved in their daughter’s death and those who stoodfast behind them.
Below is the ‘New York Times’ article from 2002 reporting on the settlement reached between the Ramsey’s and the two authors they sued for $80 million who wrote a book saying they killed their daughter. One of those authors was a detective and I haven’t sorted out if he was involved in the investigation of that case..
http://www.nytimes.com/2002/03/21/us/ramsey-lawsuit-is-settled.html
September 11th, 2009 at 3:48 pm
Thanks for answers, everyone. I am totally unqualified to comment on any of the legal stuff, though.
I agree that it was odd that Fayed was able to imply all sorts of things about the Duke of Edinburgh, for example, without any response, but I suppose it was generally considered beneath them to respond, or so ridiculous as to be unworthy of any response.
I take the points about witnesses appearing in court to be questioned but it still seems to me to be possible that GA’s case (and it’s more than just a theory for discussion!) would be automatically disproved by the fact that the Portuguese police brought no charges….because there was no evidence. He is actually saying he thinks this is what happened; not just an interesting idea to discuss! His comments are clearly defamatory as they were never borne out by any official investigation. IF he is NOT libelling the Mcs, then why on earth weren’t charges brought?
It’s one thing to put forward an interesting theory about some long-dead persons, but you can’t just destroy living people’s reputations without some sort of real evidence. GA’s TV programme, by the way, is laughably inadequate and amateurish. No proper basis is put forward for his “theory”. The court would be rolling in the aisles if they were shown the video.
As for those 40 questions…well, Kate could probably happily answer them anyway. She was advised by her Portuguese lawyer, at that particular stage, not to answer them. Excuse the reference, but you don’t keep a dog and bark yourself! You certainly don’t pay large sums of dosh to a lawyer and then reject his/her advice! She would have been insane, having just been made arguida, to refuse to follow legal advice. An awful lot of rubbish has been written about those questions, as if her silence indicated that answering them might have implicated her in some way, or that she didn’t want to help the police in the search. In fact, she just did as she was told by her lawyer; as any of us would. We’ve seen the questions. It’s not as if answering them would have helped in the search for Madeleine. In fact, it was at that moment that she realised (or thought she realised) that the search had actually been abandoned. (I don’t know if it had or not, but that seems to be what Kate thought.) The questions had nothing to do with looking for Madeleine.
This, as always is just a personal opinion. It used to annoy Mods no end, but I say again that I could be wrong! I just say it as it appears to me from what we read etc, much of which is probably (no…certainly!) misreported anyway.
But I would ask this questions. If you did not know with absolute certainty that the Mcs had committed the crimes of which GA accuses them, would you write a book stating that they had done so, even if it did make you a lot of money, and at a time when, if they are innocent, they are in deep grief and mourning for a lost child and your book could only make that so much worse? (The fact that their own actions played a crucial part is irrelevant. In fact, it must make their grief and regret all the worse.) It takes a certain sort of person to do such a thing. I think I couldn’t do it even if I thought I might be right…just in case I was wrong
In the end, the proper forces of law and order have to be respected. He of all people should know that.
And as for putting people on oath…the less said the better!
September 11th, 2009 at 2:35 pm
Scotfree, someone answered that question re slandering or libelling the dead. Was it Anorak that stated that re MJ comments? I think it was stated you can’t libel the dead, which is common sense if you think about it.
One can destroy another’s good name with malice and evil intent when they are alive and they should be taken to court over that.
September 11th, 2009 at 2:14 pm
Guaranteed!
September 11th, 2009 at 1:29 pm
Ah AZ
I see, but I no longer moderate, and I’m sure if you had transgressed it would have been edited out.
September 11th, 2009 at 1:15 pm
Maria
Basically I agree with Rockhopper but I would add that the evidence of a number of key witnesses has never really been TESTED either by the police or in a court. The initial T9 statements in Portugal where given in friendly circumstances, at a time when abduction was the main theory. The rogatory interviews in April 2008 seem to have been a less-than-adversarial affair too.
Plus we know that Kate famously declined to answer over 40 PJ questions. I may be wrong but my belief is that Kate would HAVE to answer these questions on oath if they were put to her by Amaral’s lawyers in a civil trial. The right to remain silent has less application in the civil process. Plus witnesses such as Oldfield, O’Brien, Tanner, Wilkins, Payne, Baker and Smith could be taken slowly through their evidence, again on oath, and Amaral’s lawyers could take them to task on any perceived inconsistencies.
[PS June - the reason I asked is that I believe there are some sites/individuals that you do not like us quoting from.]
September 11th, 2009 at 10:35 am
Maria.
In the UK the level of proof required to win a case in the civil court is less than in a criminal court. Instead of having to prove the case ‘beyond all reasonable doubt’ the criteria to satisfy is ‘on the balance of probabilities’
So, if things are similar in Portugal, evidence such as Dna which falls short of the standard required to prove a case in a criminal trial may well be good enough to satisfy the ‘balance of probabilities’ test.
September 11th, 2009 at 10:19 am
Maria. Whether or not the police found concrete evidence against the McCann’s that they could present in a court of law is in someways irrelevant. The book puts forward a theory that Amaral put forward for discussion, and from what I have read here and in press cuttings it would seem that he has every right to do this under Portuguese law. I also am sure that I have read in the past that the case in portugal had been shelved/archived by the PJ as they had no evidence that she had been abducted and they felt it was a good chance that she was dead.
The other thing that I would like to know is how come it is ok to write speculative pieces about people in this country, see the conspiracy theories surrounding the life and death of Princess Diana for example, but it is not permissible for someone intimately involved with the case to put forward his theories based on a long, though perhaps not glorious, career in the law?
September 11th, 2009 at 10:05 am
poor poor Amaral, those boozy lunches denied for the second time. What’s a copper to do?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EZI8CGJjoQE
September 11th, 2009 at 12:56 am
AZ
I know nothing about whether or not the witnesses would have to appear in court, but I would have thought Amaral would find it difficult to sustain his case because the PJ found NO evidence to support any charge whatsoever against the McCanns.
Since the Portuguese found no evidence how could he defend himself? This is a serious question. I’m interested in your answer. (I’m sure you’ll have one!)
I know that the McCanns are actually far more concerned about the fact that (they believe) Amaral’s opinion stopped the police searching for Madeleine than the fact that it smeared their character. That’s what they always talk about. Kate has always referred to the shock she got when they were to be made arguidos. It was then that she realised that they had stopped looking for Madeleine. THAT was the real shock. Obviously they are more concerned that their child should be found than anything else. Any parent will appreciate the order of priorities.
Nevertheless, the case will probably rest more on the defamation charge, because it would be very difficult to prove what the effect was (if any) on the search for the child whereas the libel seems to me to be pretty clear.
Thanks in advance for an answer! I’m not a lawyer.
Moderator - I understand there is to be an Appeal about the book ban by Amaral . A libel case would be a separate proceeding. The Appeal in Portugal and the libel case could be in the UK?
September 11th, 2009 at 12:02 am
AZ
No I don’t mind at all, why would I?
So, it would be held in Portugal then
September 10th, 2009 at 11:46 pm
June, hope you don’t mind me quoting this extract, translated from a Sol article on the Joana Morais site:
QUOTE
The decision to prohibit the sale of the book and the documentary has immediate effects. Gonçalo Amaral can appeal the decision to the Appeals Court or state his opposition to the decision (which in this case moves the process into a court session, that would be presided over by the same judge)
UNQUOTE
SO if that is right then Amaral needs to “state his opposition” and then there will be a full hearing before the same judge (and therefore I assume in the same court in Lisbon.)
That’s the only clarrie-fication I could find, what we need is an expert in Portuguese law!
Nite all.
September 10th, 2009 at 11:41 pm
thatpoorpriest: “To those who think Amaral didn’t base his book on facts…….care to comment on the evidence from the dogs????”
Dogs barking and acting funny is not ‘evidence’.
See post 24
http://www.anorak.co.uk/madeleine-mccann/2009/05/madeleine-mccanns-kidnapper-calls-police/
September 10th, 2009 at 11:20 pm
Its a moot point, but where would this hypothetical or otherwise trial be held?
Most libel cases are settled out of court, mainly to keep costs down