Friday, 22 October 2010
Usually an ass but not always
The
judges begin by describing the three main grounds for the appeal: the
claim for freedom of expression under the Portuguese constitution
[which has been described elsewhere
since the verdict JB];
the second claim that the facts in the book were "mere reproductions” of
the investigative data and the third, that those same facts were “even
part of the Prosecutor’s report.”
All
three claims are accepted at the end of the judgement.
They
summarise
Amaral’s
theory, with no weasel words and nothing for the
McCanns
to pick out and spin: in the book, they say, Amaral defends the theory
that the child died in the
apartment
on May 3, that an abduction
was simulated, that the parents are suspected of concealing the body and
that there was child neglect.
They
then turn to the individual himself, someone that the legal system has
until now shown every sign of treating as a non-person: Amaral. The
judges remind us of his reasons for writing the
book and
quote: “Later on, I was removed from the
investigation.
I then decided that it was time for me to defend myself in a public way.
Therefore, I immediately requested my retirement, so I could regain the
plenitude of my freedom of expression.”
The
judges add that it is “important” that the author feels he is the victim
of injustice and wants the truth, or at least his version of the truth,
to come out, especially since he felt his honour was in question and he
was not allowed to reply in his own defence. With considerable
understatement they add that this is not a minor point.
In
the book, they say, Amaral presents a multiplicity of facts from the
investigation, all of which are in the
DVD
and which are evaluated in the
Prosecutors’ report. In this multiplicity of facts some are primary,
some secondary: Amaral evaluates and weighs them accordingly, from the
standpoint of someone with 26 years experience of police investigation.
Amaral, say the judges, describes in the book, in detail, a number of
apparent facts and situations that from the outset of the investigation
were not compatible with each other leading to contradictory
conclusions.
They confirm that these reservations were not in opposition to the
Prosecutors’ report but were essentially the same as those given by
Humpty himself – by immediately turning to and quoting from his report:
“From the analysis of the depositions that were made,
[runs the report]
it became evident that important details existed which were not fully
understood and integrated, which needed to be tested and verified at the
location of events, thus rendering it possible to establish the apparent
failures to agree and the lack of consistency in a suitable
investigative form: the reconstruction. This could not be carried out,
despite the commitment that was displayed by the Public Ministry and by
the PJ, …” [my translation JB]
The
judges then turn to the
dogs, quoting not from the
Truth of the Lie
but, once again, from the Prosecutors’ report. The findings
of Eddie and Keela are given in some detail.
Having done so the judges add that the combination of the
inconsistencies and the performance of the dogs was enough to
constitute making them arguidos
[there is no mention of “haste”JB].
As far as the dogs are concerned they state that forensic evidence, as
we know, did not corroborate their findings; as far as the
contradictions are concerned the Portuguese authorities, Justice
ministry and PJ tried to perform a reconstruction but failed due to the
lack of availability of the McCanns and their friends, leaving those
contradictions still unresolved.
Here, once again, they quote not the
Truth of the Lie but the
Prosecutors’ report,
[you know, that
document that clears them]
in
support of what Amaral claims:
“(…)
despite the fact that the national authorities took all measures to
render their travelling to Portugal possible, due to motives that are
unknown, after the many doubts that they raised concerning the need and
the opportunity of their travelling were clarified several times, they
chose not to show up, which rendered the diligence impossible to
perform.
We
believe that the main damaged party were the McCann arguidos, who missed
the possibility to prove what they have protested since they were made
arguidos: their innocence towards the fateful event; the investigation
was also hindered, because said facts remain unclear (…)”.
Now, the killer blow and here we will quote the judges in full:
“What is certain [our italics JB]
is that since the start of the investigation, there were
incongruent and even contradictory situations concerning the witness
statements, the telephone records of calls that were made and received
on mobile phones that belonged to the couple and to the group of friends
that were on holidays with them, the movements of people immediately
after the disappearance of the little girl was noticed, concerning the
state in which the bedroom from where the child disappeared from was
found (closed window? open window? partially open window?), etc., and
the mystery would only become even thicker due to the clues that were
left by the aforementioned sniffer dogs.”
Note
the phrase: “what is certain”.
Killer blow number 2:
“Where Amaral differs from the Prosecutors who wrote the dispatch, is in
the logical, police-work-related and investigative interpretation that
he [Amaral]
makes of those facts.”
And number 3:
We
need, the judges say, to stress the following: the facts that led to the
applicants’ constitution as arguidos within the inquiry were later on
not sufficiently valued by the Public Ministry’s Prosecutors to lead to
a criminal accusation, but those very same facts,
seen from a different angle, may lead to a different conclusion from
that of the prosecutors.
Suggestive data (“indications”) that were deemed to be insufficient in
terms of evidence in a criminal investigation, can be appreciated in a
different way, in an interpretation that can legitimately be published
as a book, as long as the interpretation does not offend any fundamental
rights of anyone involved. In our view that said interpretation does not
offend the applicants’ rights.”
Costs were awarded against the McCanns.
The
full implications of the judgement are going to take time for all
parties to evaluate fully. But the claim that the Prosecutors’ report
was a finding of either guilt or innocence is dead: it is an
interpretation of the evidence of no more validity than that of Goncalo
Amaral, perhaps – given, as the judges say, the experience and ability
of the inspector – even less.
The
verdict makes it quite clear that the burden of legal suspicion has not
been lifted from the McCanns by the archiving report. And, by quoting
the report in its relevant passages, the judges also show that the
failure of the Tapas Nine to co-operate in clarifying the events of May
3 was, and remains,
central to the investigation.
The
TM lawyers – who have to be paid - will no doubt be studying the
judgement – whose translators had to be paid - very carefully, in
liaison with Shrieker Duarte, who has to be paid. Where will the Dirty
Pair go on getting the money? In the UK last week the famous Liverpool
football club court case which involved virtually no preparatory work
and ran for a mere few days had costs awarded against the losing party
of around one hundred thousand
pounds per day. Goncalo Amaral, God preserve him, has
already faced the problems of trying to defend himself without any
available funds: it may well be the McCanns’ turn next.
Posted by
john blacksmith
at
16:49 |