Madeleine McCann: German Prisoner Identified as Suspect #31

[mrjitty]

They lost the supposed 'libel' case years ago.

The ECHR case is not against Amaral and is a different cause of action so there can be inconsistent verdicts.

 

[mrjitty]

Especially against the backdrop of present developments, how on earth can a book of Amaral's, accusing the McCanns of killing Madeleine with an overdose of calpol, hiding their dead daughter's body, fabricating abduction and launching a fraudulent fund in their dead daughter's name possibly be deemed other than libelous?

The confusion arises from years of bad reporting in the UK media, presumably because they struggled to follow a case conducted in Portuguese other than press briefings from the plaintiffs.

This never was a 'libel' trial in the sense that we understand it in the plaintiff friendly UK. Many jurisdictions (e.g the US) draw the line more in favour of free speech. So at least part of what was going on is the plaintiffs injuncted the book and the profits made from its sale. They won at first instance, but lost in the Supreme Court. The defence case was essentially that the book accurately reflected the state of the investigation at the time Amaral left his role.

The plaintiffs lost that case many years ago. The ECHR action is not an appeal of the decision regarding Amaral's book. The defendant is the Government of Portugal.

So as you can see, it is easily possible for the plaintiffs to win in ECHR despite having lost their action against Amaral. While the proceedings relate to a similar set of facts, one is not an appeal of the other.

It is also entirely possible for the plaintiffs to lose at ECHR and for CB to be found guilty. The question is whether rights were infringed by the government of Portugal, not whether the parents were innocent.

My 02c

 

[enquirer6]

The confusion arises from years of bad reporting in the UK media, presumably because they struggled to follow a case conducted in Portuguese other than press briefings from the plaintiffs.

This never was a 'libel' trial in the sense that we understand it in the plaintiff friendly UK. Many jurisdictions (e.g the US) draw the line more in favour of free speech. So at least part of what was going on is the plaintiffs injuncted the book and the profits made from its sale. They won at first instance, but lost in the Supreme Court. The defence case was essentially that the book accurately reflected the state of the investigation at the time Amaral left his role.

The plaintiffs lost that case many years ago. The ECHR action is not an appeal of the decision regarding Amaral's book. The defendant is the Government of Portugal.

So as you can see, it is easily possible for the plaintiffs to win in ECHR despite having lost their action against Amaral. While the proceedings relate to a similar set of facts, one is not an appeal of the other.

It is also entirely possible for the plaintiffs to lose at ECHR and for CB to be found guilty. The question is whether rights were infringed by the government of Portugal, not whether the parents were innocent.

My 02c

But if 'free speech' extends to the 'right' to publish and profit from outright lies that lower reputation (exactly what Amaral's book does!) then what is the point of 'libel' laws at all?

 

[Davieson]

But if 'free speech' extends to the 'right' to publish and profit from outright lies that lower reputation (exactly what Amaral's book does!) then what is the point of 'libel' laws at all?

I don't see that profit enters into the argument at all. The legal position regarding libel would be exactly the same if all proceeds from the book/video were given to a charity.

 

[RichardKimble]

But if 'free speech' extends to the 'right' to publish and profit from outright lies that lower reputation (exactly what Amaral's book does!) then what is the point of 'libel' laws at all?

Are these "libel" laws consistent through out the world ? but imo its best wait on what the ECHR have to say rather than pre judge what is considered "libel" in law rather than opinion, thats if the ECHR rule on such, but that is not mentioned in what is before them.
This is from the ECHR web.

McCann and Healy v. Portugal (no. 57195/17)
The applicants, Gerald Patrick McCann and Kate Marie Healy, are British nationals, born in 1968.
They live in Leicestershire, in the United Kingdom.
The case concerns statements made by Mr Gonçalo Amaral – a former detective inspector – in a
book, a documentary adapted from that book and a newspaper interview about the applicants’
alleged involvement in the disappearance of their daughter, Madeleine McCann, who went missing
on 3 May 2007 in southern Portugal.
Relying on Articles 6 §§ 1 and 2 (right to a fair hearing), 8 (right to respect for private and family life)
and 10 (freedom of expression) of the Convention, the applicants allege that those statements
damaged their reputation, their good name and their right to be presumed innocent, and complain
that they were unable to obtain redress before the domestic civil courts. They also argue that the
reasoning in decisions issued by the Supreme Court on 31 January and 21 March 2017, at the close
of an action for damages brought by them, breached their right to be presumed innocent.

 

[mrjitty]

But if 'free speech' extends to the 'right' to publish and profit from outright lies that lower reputation (exactly what Amaral's book does!) then what is the point of 'libel' laws at all?

Again this is the problem with the reporting.

Evidence at trial indicated that the book reflected a fair summary of the official state of the investigation at the time - so in general terms it reflected his opinion, based on that factual foundation. He didn't just make up all this stuff - rather it was his opinion, based on all those experiences and knowledge.

The fact that he might be wrong, or that a later investigation might conclude something different doesn't matter.

It is pretty clear from the official documents that the state of the investigation at the time Amaral was replaced was pretty much as his book says.

It would be the same if a journalist had written a book based on the investigation at that time.

 

[enquirer6]

Again this is the problem with the reporting.

Evidence at trial indicated that the book reflected a fair summary of the official state of the investigation at the time - so in general terms it reflected his opinion, based on that factual foundation. He didn't just make up all this stuff - rather it was his opinion, based on all those experiences and knowledge.

The fact that he might be wrong, or that a later investigation might conclude something different doesn't matter.

It is pretty clear from the official documents that the state of the investigation at the time Amaral was replaced was pretty much as his book says.

It would be the same if a journalist had written a book based on the investigation at that time.

<snip> Evidence at the trial indicated that the book reflected a fair summary of the official state of the investigation at the time ...

"Evidence" at the trial could scarcely have been more wide of the mark.

In particular, according to Amaral, Eddie had "no hesitation" in reacting to Gerry's blood on the ignition key of the Renault Scenic.

Certainly by English libel law, omitting relevant facts can be libellous, even if what you DO say is true, which what Amaral said wasn't. Amaral never mentioned the key, but said that, from the point of Eddie's alert, there was "no doubt" Madeleine had been taken somewhere dead in the Renault Scenic. Perhaps, in the minds of certain PJ officers, but never in the minds of anyone English present in PdL to investigate Madeleine's disappearance.

Amaral's interpretation of the role of Mark Harrison is something else. According to Amaral, Harrison directed the investigation to look for Madeleine's body, (sic) hidden somewhere close to apartment 5a. I think Amaral dimly perceived that Mark Harrison ruled out burial but doesn't mention, as he should have, that Harrison took orders from Amaral's boss, Encarnacido, to investigate that Madeleine had been murdered and buried. Harrison did so, ruling out burial, and making plain he had no real idea what happened to Madeleine.

How on earth Amaral concluded, in an interview, not his book, that (sic) we talked about death by others, not murder, I have no idea.

The point is a sensitive one with McCann-accusers, keen to discredit Kate's perfectly truthful account in her book of the 'deal' put to her and Gerry; either Kate confesses to 'finding and moving a body' and will get a few years, while Gerry will be let off scot free; OR the pair would be charged with MURDER.

ETA: In his book, Amaral plagiarizes the work of Mark Harrison with an invented tale about his wife finding the body of their pet dog with head injuries. He tries to dig a hole to bury the body of the dog, finds the ground hard to dig, and the inspiration hits him how much 'easier' it would be to hide, rather than bury, a body. Thus was formed Amaral's thesis of what Gerry is supposed to have done with the body of Madeleine.

*Edited to remove repetition.

 

[enquirer6]

I don't see that profit enters into the argument at all. The legal position regarding libel would be exactly the same if all proceeds from the book/video were given to a charity.

Amaral's reputation would be (marginally!) less tarnished if he had 'merely' written a book of lies all the proceeds from which had gone to some (genuinely!) deserving cause. But he didn't.

He wrote a book of lies, took all the profits from that book of lies (minus anything owed to publishers and whatever else) and spent it (as far as we know) on himself.

Goncalo Amaral's New Jaguar Seized!

Disgraced Former Detective's New Jaguar Seized Goncalo Amaral the former police inspector who first led the hunt for missing child Madelein...

justice4mccannfam.blogspot.com

But what happened to the money is, really, secondary, to the calumny he visited on two bereft and grieving parents, whose precious daughter was, according, now, to three police forces, English, German and Portuguese, snatched and probably murdered by German national, Christian Brueckner.

 

[Davieson]

Amaral's reputation would be (marginally!) less tarnished if he had 'merely' written a book of lies all the proceeds from which had gone to some (genuinely!) deserving cause. But he didn't.

He wrote a book of lies, took all the profits from that book of lies (minus anything owed to publishers and whatever else) and spent it (as far as we know) on himself.

Goncalo Amaral's New Jaguar Seized!

Disgraced Former Detective's New Jaguar Seized Goncalo Amaral the former police inspector who first led the hunt for missing child Madelein...

justice4mccannfam.blogspot.com

But what happened to the money is, really, secondary, to the calumny he visited on two bereft and grieving parents, whose precious daughter was, according, now, to three police forces, English, German and Portuguese, snatched and probably murdered by German national, Christian Brueckner.

The problem with that last sentence is that has yet to be proved.
Only a minor inconvenience for some, I know.

 

[enquirer6]

The problem with that last sentence is that has yet to be proved.
Only a minor inconvenience for some, I know.

Whilst it's probably fair to say that if Herr Walters was completely sure of his case, he would, by now, already have pressed charges, at least there is a case against Brueckner.

There never was against, either the McCanns or Robert Murat.

 

[Davieson]

Whilst it's probably fair to say that if Herr Walters was completely sure of his case, he would, by now, already have pressed charges, at least there is a case against Brueckner.

There never was against, either the McCanns or Robert Murat.

Is there? Will there still be a case if, like the McCanns, he is never charged ?

 

[enquirer6]

Is there? Will there still be a case if he is never charged ?

He might be given technical benefit of the doubt. We'll have to wait and see

 

[mrjitty]

"Evidence" at the trial could scarcely have been more wide of the mark.

In particular, according to Amaral, Eddie had "no hesitation" in reacting to Gerry's blood on the ignition key of the Renault Scenic.

Certainly by English libel law, omitting relevant facts can be libellous, even if what you DO say is true, which what Amaral said wasn't. Amaral never mentioned the key, but said that, from the point of Eddie's alert, there was "no doubt" Madeleine had been taken somewhere dead in the Renault Scenic. Perhaps, in the minds of certain PJ officers, but never in the minds of anyone English present in PdL to investigate Madeleine's disappearance.

Amaral's interpretation of the role of Mark Harrison is something else. According to Amaral, Harrison directed the investigation to look for Madeleine's body, (sic) hidden somewhere close to apartment 5a. I think Amaral dimly perceived that Mark Harrison ruled out burial but doesn't mention, as he should have, that Harrison took orders from Amaral's boss, Encarnacido, to investigate that Madeleine had been murdered and buried. Harrison did so, ruling out burial, and making plain he had no real idea what happened to Madeleine.

How on earth Amaral concluded, in an interview, not his book, that (sic) we talked about death by others, not murder, I have no idea.

The point is a sensitive one with McCann-accusers, keen to discredit Kate's perfectly truthful account in her book of the 'deal' put to her and Gerry; either Kate confesses to 'finding and moving a body' and will get a few years, while Gerry will be let off scot free; OR the pair would be charged with MURDER.

ETA: In his book, Amaral plagiarizes the work of Mark Harrison with an invented tale about his wife finding the body of their pet dog with head injuries. He tries to dig a hole to bury the body of the dog, finds the ground hard to dig, and the inspiration hits him how much 'easier' it would be to hide, rather than bury, a body. Thus was formed Amaral's thesis of what Gerry is supposed to have done with the body of Madeleine.

*Edited to remove repetition.

You asked why the book was not libellous, and i attempted to provide a high level answer.

The law of Portugal is quite different to UK libel law, so comparisons to the position in the UK don't have much if any relevance.

To me the warning in all of this, is the media should be much more careful in reporting unsubstantiated allegations / leaks by police forces against suspects - and yet we see that all over again.

 

[enquirer6]

You asked why the book was not libellous, and i attempted to provide a high level answer.

The law of Portugal is quite different to UK libel law, so comparisons to the position in the UK don't have much if any relevance.

To me the warning in all of this, is the media should be much more careful in reporting unsubstantiated allegations / leaks by police forces against suspects - and yet we see that all over again.

I gave specific examples from Amaral's book of factual inaccuracies that malign the reputation of the McCanns, which, by any standards, is the (usual) definition of libel. I could have quoted several more.

But certainly reports of the Portuguese press about the investigation, picked up and parroted by the UK press, were quite shocking.

In particular, the Gerry not Madeleine's father canard can be directly attributed, from the files on line, to Amaral.

 

[misty48]

You asked why the book was not libellous, and i attempted to provide a high level answer.

The law of Portugal is quite different to UK libel law, so comparisons to the position in the UK don't have much if any relevance.

To me the warning in all of this, is the media should be much more careful in reporting unsubstantiated allegations / leaks by police forces against suspects - and yet we see that all over again.

If there was no defamation (tort) then what was the basis for the court of First Instance awarding the McCanns substantial damages and banning all future sales of GA's book?
Have the German press tarnished CB's reputation by publishing unsubstantiated allegations against him?

 

[RichardKimble]

If there was no defamation (tort) then what was the basis for the court of First Instance awarding the McCanns substantial damages and banning all future sales of GA's book?
Have the German press tarnished CB's reputation by publishing unsubstantiated allegations against him?

Then it goes onto why was it successfully appealed, upheld , up to and including the SC , which is why it's now at the ECHR.

 

[Davieson]

If there was no defamation (tort) then what was the basis for the court of First Instance awarding the McCanns substantial damages and banning all future sales of GA's book?
Have the German press tarnished CB's reputation by publishing unsubstantiated allegations against him?

An error of judgement later corrected by several more experienced judges ?

 

[enquirer6]

Then it goes onto why was it successfully appealed, upheld , up to and including the SC , which is why it's now at the ECHR.

Then it goes onto why was it successfully appealed, upheld , up to and including the SC , which is why it's now at the ECHR.

It was successfully appealed because the Portuguese Supreme Court chose not to consider facts, but simply "rights".

It found, contrary to the opinion of the first-instance judge, that Amaral was under no obligation to consider factual content of the files against his interpretation of those facts in his book. He just had an untrammelled 'right' to present a view of the shelved investigation, any way he wanted, with no regard to how his presentation of the facts compared or contrasted with what the facts of the files.

Hence, Amaral was allowed to get away with stating that Eddie 'had no hesitation' in alerting, actually (although Amaral didn't say so) to Gerry's blood on the ignition key of the Renault Scenic.

Amaral was allowed to get away with mangling and misrepresenting the role of Mark Harrison beyond recognition and in a way, of course, accusing of the McCanns

He was allowed to get away with not pointing out that Grime was freelance, incompetent, corrupt, and rehearsing the modus operandi he would, several years later, repeat in Detroit and the Bianca Jones investigation.

Amaral was allowed to get away with not pointing out that, had inspections gone the way Harrison, part of whose job was supposed to have been to determine the schedule of searches, had planned, there would never have been inspections of: the McCanns' rented villa, where Madeleine never lived; the Renault Scenic, hired 3 weeks after Madeleine vanished; clothing. Thank goodness, none of Robert Murat's clothing was strewn over a floor for dogs to trample over and sniff, and one dog to bark and pick certain items up in his mouth. Neither should the McCanns' clothing have been. Especially not the same clothing twice in different spots.

Grime signalled his intent to get in an 'inspection' of clothing as early as his profile, written, we can't know when, it is deliberately undated, but before anyone English set foot on Portuguese soil, with the brazen lie that he had a cadaver dog that could be used for such purposes. The fiasco at the gym in Lagos exposed that lie. Following that fiasco, everything was returned, immediately, to Kate and Gerry without being forensically examined.

 

[RichardKimble]

@enquirer6, is there any basis for those claims, from reading it seems as if you have some personal beef against Grime .
What it has to do with the thread title of the German prisoner no doubt some one will enlighten us.

 

[enquirer6]

@enquirer6, is there any basis for those claims, from reading it seems as if you have some personal beef against Grime .
What it has to do with the thread title of the German prisoner no doubt some one will enlighten us.

"Claims"?

The files on-line.