Monday, 30 September 2013

Mr. Amaral Thanks You, Kate McCann

Kate McCann, on July 21st, 2008, two days before Mr Amaral's book was published, reacting about having the arguido status lifted:

Kate: We welcome the news today… although it’s no cause for celebration… It’s hard to describe how utterly despairing it was, to be named arguido… and subsequently portrayed in the media as suspects in our own’s daughter’s abduction… and worse…
Equally it has been devastating to witness, the detrimental effect that this status… status had on the search for Madeleine.
We look forward to scrutinizing the police files and see what actually has been done, and more importantly, what can still be done, as we leave no stone unturned in the search for our little girl.
We do once again urge anyone with relevant information, who has not yet come forward to please do so.
Please contact our hotline number on +448458384699 or visit our website on
Finally we would like to thank everyone that has supported us and stayed with us in this particular difficult period, we can assure that we will never give up on Madeleine.
Reporter: Yes, can you tell me, please, how much bitterness or resentment if want to name it, having been left as arguido for this great length of time has been distracting from the search for Madeleine?
Kate: It’s like I said in my statement really it’s been devastating because I truly believe it had a very negative effect in the search for Madeleine.
Reporter: Gerry, now that the arguido’s status has been lifted and you have the opportunity to look at the police files, do you have any plans to return to Portugal?
Gerry: We don’t very have immediate plans to return to Portugal at the minute, we obviously want to digest the statement and also get access of the files to see what still can be done…
Reporter: It is a possibility but…
Kate: The search is still going on.
Reporter: Do you have any plans to take any legal action whatsoever against the Portuguse authorities?
Gerry: Our priorities is always to see the search for Madeleine and that will be what will be very much prioritizing what we do in the coming weeks and just see what can still be done everything else will be considered in due course. 

Thank you

An enormous and heartfelt thanks for the comment from Anon at 30 Sep 2013 06:52:00 to our Thank You, Gerry post.

That comment was deleted as we had to secure the video due to a probability of it being whooshed, something that BBC has done before, namely with the F-Word slander involving Mr. Amaral.

It will now be republished as the first comment of this post.

Friday, 27 September 2013

Thank You, Gerry McCann

Gerry McCann, Sept 27th, 2013 (at 01:02 on video above):

"Well, the law's changed and I think, ...err... I think Kate and I know better than anyone else, ...err... what we've experienced and what we've gone through and the facts of the file and, ...err... the damage that's been caused to the search for Madeleine..."

And also thank you, Anonymous Sep 27, 2013, 3:04:00 PM by providing the link to the video in your comment to our post Historic Registry 3

Historic Registry 3

See also: Historic Registry and Historic Registry 2 posts.

From the Anne Guedes transcriptions.

Libel trial McCann v Gonçalo Amaral - Day 4 Witness No 2

The testimony as it happened...

(20.09.2013, 3:30pm) Maria Isabel Stilwell is a writer and the editor of Destak, the first free daily newspaper in Portugal. She says she interviewed Kate McCann in May 2011 when she launched the Portuguese translation of the book "Madeleine". She only knows Gonçalo Amaral by reputation and has never had any dealings with any of the other defendants. The witness is asked about libel judgements she is or has been part of. She answers that she presently has no process with Gonçalo Amaral.

The Judge asks if the witness has read Gonçalo Amaral's book.
IS says she has.

The Judge asks whether IS has watched his documentary.
IS says "yes".

The Judge asks whether the witness' public controversial position concerning Gonçalo Amaral will influence her testimony.
IS says her conscience tells her "no", but then adds she hopes it will not.

1) The McCann family lawyer, Isabel Duarte, is the first to question the witness.

ID - Are you a writer?
IS says "yes".

ID - Are you familiar with all the files in this case?
IS says she is aware of the contents of the Attorney General’s Final Report and adds that she wrote about it.

ID - What was your job then?
IS says she was the editor of Destak. She adds that the book campaign was massive.

(The Judge overrules the comment as off topic for now)

ID - What was the effect of the Amaral book on the public?
IS – Any person who announces he/she will tell people all the truth is very successful.

ID - About the audience share of the documentary, how did you obtain that data?
IS doesn't know but thinks Destak may have found the information online.

ID - It had over 2 million viewers! Is that normal?
IS apologises for being trivial but draws a parallel to a major football competition.

ID - Did the attention of the media and the people diminish after the publication of the book?
IS believes so. She says the issue which had most focus was whether Madeleine was alive or dead. She refers to people in Portugal who believe that bad things happen to bad people and that good things happen to good people. People think that "criminals are always different from us and since the McCanns aren't like us, they are widely considered cold and uncaring.".

(Dr Santos de Oliveira, lawyer for Gonçalo Amaral listening to this exchange has become increasingly exasperated, reacts saying that it is nothing to do with his client. ID's assistant also reacts vehemently. The judge tells them to stop immediately.
SO dictates the court clerk a protest saying that the witness exhibits a hostile demeanour towards his client and asks that her statement not be admitted by the Court. ID obviously protests.
The Judge cites an Article from Chapter 6, section I of the CPC which can preclude a witness from testifying. She adds that SO presented none of these arguments. Therefore nothing prevents IS from testifying. But the Judge requests that the questions be more objective)

ID - Did the attention of the public and the media decrease after the publication of the book and the broadcast of the documentary?
IS says she "has a feeling" it did.

ID - Are there numbers, notes supporting this?
IS says that as a newspaper editor she knows when an issue is important. She resumes her narrative about beliefs that bad things happen to bad people and observes that everything (in the media) tended to make the McCann couple more distant than they were. When finally the book was published, the issue appeared to be resolved and closed.

ID - The Maddie case has been deeply and amply treated, there have been many other books...
IS interrupts objecting she read none of these books. She thinks they're not of much concern and adds that none of them has the credibility or impact of a book written by an ex-inspector who was initially in charge of the case.

ID asks if she knows that former PJ inspector Moita Flores commented on the Maddie case and the book on TV.
IS knows that the book was commented on TV, on the news. She remembers that MF praised Gonçalo Amaral and she adds that a child can be missing without the parents being guilty. She remembers the title "PJ inspector agrees with homicide". She wrote on the providencia cautelar (the Injunction) because the people imagined that the issue was to examine whether the parents were guilty or not, she wanted to speak on freedom of expression versus the right to a good name.
She resumes her narrative about newspapers which publish anything just for a story, people who accept anything as the truth, etc.

ID asks whether the facts mentioned in the book and the documentary were facts established in the Final Report.
IS thinks they're not, otherwise the parents would have be tried. She says that none of the allegations were proved. She says it is typical Portuguese provincialism to believe the opposite of what a Final Report says.

ID - Were the facts mentioned by Gonçalo Amaral ascertained?
IS thinks "no". The Final Report says there is no proof. She adds that it is not legitimate to speak of freedom of expression without limits.

ID - asks whether the witness speaks of a paragraph in the book or of the insinuations in the conclusions.

(The Judge overrules, she requires more precision)

ID - says she refers to the paragraph containing the words, “fraud or abuse of trust...” ("burla ou
abuso de...")
During a moment of relaxation at one of these meetings, I did a side step or I might have been inopportune and rather undiplomatic. Worried with the possibility that the McCann couple were somehow involved in their daughter's disappearance and reflecting about the kind of crime they might have committed, something occurred to me. If, really, any type of responsibility of the McCann couple was confirmed, then the fund set up to finance the search for Madeleine that had reached nearly €3 million could be a crime of fraud or abuse of trust. This question was debated and, in fact, with such premises the crimes of qualified fraud or abuse of trust could exist, but Portugal would have no jurisdiction to investigate and judge it. The fund being legally registered in England, it would be our English colleagues who would deal with the case. Our English colleagues then realised a hard reality: the strong possibility that they would have a crime to investigate in their own country, with the McCann couple as the main suspects: a prospect that left them rather reluctant.
IS interrupts and says she didn't read any reference to that fact in the Final Report.

(SO objects that this isn't a fact and the Judge concurs.)

ID - asks how she can explain the effect of...
IS interrupts and says that whoever reads it sees all the pieces fall into place, the theory seems genuine, it doesn't leave room for doubt. She says it is written from the perspective of a victim.

(The Judge again overrules...)

IS interrupts saying it's her reading of the book. She adds that if it was true the McCanns would be in jail.

2) Defence lawyers.

a) TVI lawyers’ questions.

TVI - You're not sure about the over 2 millions of audience share?
IS says that at the time she thinks an article was written on this but it's easy to check.
(She makes a gesture towards her bag but stops as nobody reacts)

TVI - Are you speaking as a journalist?
IS says "yes".

TVI - asks a conclusive question about freedom of expression versus good name.

(The Judge again overrules)

IS resumes her narrative criticising the documentary where the group is shown drinking and a little girl left alone without any alternative point of view. How could parents agree with fifty minutes of that? She says that after 33 years of professional work she's allowed to value judgements.

TVI - wants to know if the witness has evidence comparisons on the topic of decreasing interest.
IS says she has.

b) Valentim de Carvalho (DVD production/distribution) lawyer's questions

VC - Do you remember when the Final Report was released?
IS thinks it was in June 2008.

VC reminds her that the Final Report states that the definition of the crime was not established from the available evidence.
IS says she didn't read that.

(The Judge intervenes and points out that the case was shelved for lack of evidence.)

VC asks whether IS remembers the conclusions of Gonçalo Amaral book and starts to quote an extract...
The results my team and I have arrived at are the following:-
1. The minor, Madeleine McCann died inside apartment 5A of the Ocean Club in Vila da Luz, on the
night of 3rd May 2007;
2. There was simulation of abduction;
3. Kate Healy and Gerald McCann are suspects of involvement in the concealment of their daughter's body;
4. The death could have occurred as a result of a tragic accident;
5. There are clues about the parents’ negligence concerning the care and safety of the children.
VC - asks in what way those are facts or conclusions.
IS starts to claim vehemently and loudly that Gonçalo Amaral had no right to, he has an obsession... She mentions the Intermediate Report that he signed (10th September by Tavares de Almeida). She insists that it is worse than the book. She says the book is very well written, easy to read.

VC - Are the facts of the criminal investigation the same as close expressed in the book? If the conclusions...
IS again interrupts, but not to answer. She speaks with a great volubility which renders her speech difficult to understand. She speaks of the newspaper Correio da Manhã and of delirious theories of conspiracy. 
c) Guerra & Paz's lawyer's questions

GP - asks since when did IS commence working in journalism.
IS says she started in 1981 and starts listing everything she did in a sarcastic manner.

(The Judge intervenes to remind the witness this is a judgement and not to be sarcastic by entering into such minute detail)

GP - was the decrease of news related to the fact it was a book?
IS answers it's obvious that news may emerge when, for example, there's a judgement. The feeling is that people think that what happened is already known.

GP - but...
IS interrupts GP again saying that when there are doubts, people speak a lot. She starts describing how a journalist works.

GP - asks if someone was in charge of marketing of the book.
IS says that marketing actions, to-day, can't be bypassed. She resumes a narrative about the marketing of books, including books for children, cooking, novels, etc.

GP - mentions the three other books written on the case and asks about their marketing.
IS says she didn't read them.

GP – Do you know how many copies the Correio da Manha sells?
IS knows, but asks "what has that got to do with the issue?"

(The Judge overrules the witness's question and observes the witness is continuously attempting to give meaning to what she says. IS interrupts the Judge and protests. The Judge concludes she can't help it)

GP – In your editorials you mentioned the position of Gonçalo Amaral...
IS again interrupts saying there are two kinds of things in a newspaper, facts and articles of opinion.

GP – Didn't you say your objective was to clarify things in order to inform the public?
IS answers that from the beginning, in May 2007, she claimed she would be objective and wouldn't necessarily be on the side of the parents, known to be the initial suspects in this kind of case.

GP reminds her that the book was published on the 24th July while the Final Report was released on the 21st July. She wants to know if GA could be aware of the Final Report's conclusions.
(The Judge overrules)

d) Santos Oliveira (GA lawyer) questions

SO - Are your opinions only based on news?
IS says "not only". She mentions TV programs, books.

SO - Have you read all the Final Report?

IS says "no".

SO – Are you aware that the Final Report indicates the child to be most likely dead?

IS says she is.

SO – Since this hypothesis exists in the Final Report, the book...

IS interrupts again saying the fact of death doesn't mean that the parents are guilty.

The Judge – The Final report doesn't say the homicide is due to the parents.
She reads this part from the Report:-
No respeitante aos outros crimes indiciados não passam disso mesmo e pese embora se nos afigurar não ser de descartar, dado o seu elevado grau de probabilidade, a verificação dum homicídio, tal não pode passar de mera suposição por carência de elementos de sustentação nos autos.
Translates into:
Concerning the other indicated crimes, they are no more than that and despite our perception that, due to its high degree of probability, the occurrence of a homicide cannot be discarded, such cannot be more than a mere supposition, due to the lack of sustaining elements in the files.
(Astro translation)

SO - But the book doesn't say that the homicide was due to the parents. If the book doesn't say anything else that what's in the...
(IS interrupts, but in turn is immediately interrupted by the Judge.)

Judge: Let me do this part!

Evidence ends.

End of day 4.

Monday, 23 September 2013

Historic Registry 2

The session commences with a discussion on the order in which witnesses are to be heard. The McCann family lawyer Isabel Duarte requests a modification because some witnesses reside in the UK (the last session on 13th September, was shortened due to the judge's personal problem). Isabel Duarte had proposed written statements but defence lawyers Fatima Esteves and Santos Oliveira objected (all parties must agree). This protest has to be written down.

The judge then reminds the clerk to record the reaction by the plaintiff to the request of "exclusion of publicity" by the defender, a request the judge considered without merit.

All this took an hour because each request must comply strictly with and be recorded in accordance with Portugal’s Civil Procedure Code.

The testimony as it happened...

(19.09.2013, 10:30am) Alan Robert Pike is currently a Clinical Partner & Trauma Consultant at The Centre for Crisis Psychology (CCP), a private Company which provides psychological care for traumatised individuals.
He is a Crisis Counsellor and holds an honours degree in Social Science.
He first met the McCanns on the 5th May 2007. 
His first contact was a phone call from the Mark Warner Group at 4am in the morning. 
He says it is quite normal to be woken up in the middle of the night in a case of psychological traumatic.
MW requested he take the next possible flight to the Algarve. 
He says he provided professional services to the McCann family on a regular basis up until September 2007. 
After they went back to the UK he continued to counsel them up until about 3 years ago. 
He is now in contact with them on a pro bono (no charge) basis by e-mail and telephone. 
From the end of 2007, he was engaged by the McCanns directly. 
He says MW did much more than would have normally been expected of such a company.

1) McCann family lawyer, Isabel Duarte, is the first to question the witness.

ID asks whether she can question him on his professional relationship with the McCanns, whether there is a confidentiality clause.
AP says he anticipated this question and talked to the McCanns before coming to Lisbon. He says the confidentiality is normal but the McCanns authorized him to provide information.

ID says the issue is the effect of the Amaral book and the documentary on the McCann family.
– Do you know of these?
AP says he read the book and has seen the documentary.

ID – In what circumstances did you come across them?
AP says it was very easy. The documentary was on YouTube and Kate McCann sent him a translated copy of the book.

ID – This book had great impact on Kate, Gerald, Sean and Amelie McCann. Why? Can you explain?
AP says that, in order to understand the effect of the publication of the book on the McCann family, it is necessary to understand something about this family.
In the first 12 months after the abduction (note: he always speaks of "abduction"), the most dramatic episode of their life, the McCanns were in recuperation mode. In the first weeks they had all the symptoms of a family badly hurt, Kate McCann in particular. It was terrible for her to leave Portugal where she had been with Madeleine for the last time, very tough too to return home, to see Madeleine's bedroom, her toys, clothes, friends, etc.
The investigation was going on in Portugal and because they were so far away it was difficult to keep up with developments. For someone who experiences an abduction trauma, the most important aspect is information. Ultimately, the friends and the family helped considerably and the McCanns followed the advice of professionals concerning the twins. The McCanns worked with the twins' school and taking the circumstances into account the twins got on well. The routine after a time had returned and things had stabilised. Gerald McCann was involved in a research project while Kate worked on the search for Madeleine, supported her husband and took care of the kids, everything was functioning as best as could be expected given the circumstances
The publication of the Amaral book caused a bombshell. It was not so much the content of the book, but what one could deduce from it as the book had been published so soon after the shelving of the case. The famous secret of the instruction had been broken by the author of the book. There was a feeling of dire frustration and helplessness, the McCanns could speak to nobody, they had been told so.

ID - How did the book speak whereas they weren't allowed to?
AP – It suggested Gonçalo Amaral and the PJ had relationships before the shelving.
AP doesn't understand how the book could be published, considers that it was a violation of the secret. The fact the book was written by a police officer gave credibility to the book. When, 14 months after the abduction, the McCanns found out about the content of the book and its conclusions (a simulated abduction), their anxiety increased. The McCanns started to worry about public opinion in Portugal, if people thought Madeleine was dead, they wouldn't look for her. Since it was then accepted that the greatest chance of finding Madeleine was still in Portugal, that possibility declined significantly if the public believed her to be dead.

(Then something unexpected happened. Alan Pike asked if he could use notes that were on his iPad.
The judge said "yes of course" but when it became clear that Alan Pike was going to read extracts from the McCann book "Madeleine", the judge instructed that he couldn't read the book to the Court.)

AP says the activities and reactions of Gonçalo Amaral were unpleasant and distressing. At that time it was very difficult to tolerate his campaign of trashing the McCann's reputation.

(AP repeats, repeats what he has already said. It is not clear why he needed his iPad)

AP says Kate McCann passed days in a terrible state because of the injustice of the book. She was hurt and angry.

(The judge asks whether he recorded this information and then repeats them.)

AP says these are things Kate told him when he asked her. When he had regular contact with them he realised that the McCanns feared that nobody would now look for Madeleine in Portugal. They were at that time also very much concerned with the translation of the PJ files.

(AP says he must read his notes. He reads.)

AP – They received information from Portugal in the summer of 2008 about the Amaral book, the support it had, the TV shows... That created a great distress. Nobody in Portugal challenged the conclusions of the book, whereas the judge (note; he means the AG) said there was no evidence they were involved. So how could Gonçalo Amaral arrive at the conclusion he did? Nobody challenged him.
The McCanns decided to do nothing at that time and concentrate on the most important thing which was the search for Madeleine. They hoped the publicity around the book would diminish slowly with time. But in 2009 Kate told AP about a documentary based on that book. A friend in Portugal had told her about it and said the conclusions were similar. When Kate watched the film, AP remembers she was even more devastated. He says this was the secondary trauma.
The secondary trauma is sometimes more violent, more rooted and more extreme than the original trauma. It is more difficult to cope with. (note: this notion of "secondary trauma" will be invoked a few times afterwards by the defence lawyers, likely in order to understand it better).
The family was disappointed and angry, in Portugal the people would stop searching for Madeleine. Kate was in such a bad state that Gerald had to quit his job for some time to care for her. In the summer of 2009 Kate was not well at all as a direct result of reactions to the documentary. She was helpless; she said she'd prefer not to be there. She was anxious (he thinks he's the only one with whom she shared), that is when the idea of an action against the book in Portugal first arose. There was an injunction, the book was banned, but even so the book was available on the internet in the UK, there was also much publicity about it consequently the doubts of their involvement had spread to the UK.
The book surprised Kate who lived a normal life of a mother, doing shopping, driving the kids to school, chatting with other kids' parents, etc. Most people in Portugal and an increasing number in the UK were also convinced by Amaral's theory. Kate feared her closest friends would be convinced too. This also contributed to the secondary trauma.

ID – What did you mean when you spoke of the book and the secrecy of the instruction?
AP – It was impossible for Gonçalo Amaral to write the book without inside knowledge about the process before the shelving of the investigation. They saw that Gonçalo Amaral managed to obtain inside information and that worried them.

2) Defence lawyers.

a) TVI lawyers’ questions.

TVI – When you referred to notes, did you mean Kate McCann's diary or book?
AP says "both".

TVI – Have you read "Madeleine"?
AP says he did.

(The TVI lawyer wants to know what "Madeleine" is about. The judge says the facts to be examined by this court are listed and this issue isn't part of it.)

TVI – Do you know who put the documentary on YouTube?

(The judge overrules again, saying it is off topic.)

b) Guerra & Paz's lawyer's questions

GP – What exactly is your profession?
AP answer he is a Crisis Counsellor.

GP asks whether he is a psychologist?
AP says he has some competences in psychology (psychology was one of the elements in his degree).

GP asks again "are you a psychologist?"
AP says no.

GP asks which tour operator contacted him
AP says it was Mark Warner.

GP – When you were contracted and came to Portugal, was it because of a trauma situation? Which situation?
AP – A little girl had been abducted, the family and friends needed support.

GP – Are all your actions around the disappearance of Madeleine?
AP says yes.

GP - Between the 3rd May and September 2007 you accompanied the McCanns. How? On the phone, being present?
AP says he saw the twins; he had contact many times a day (implies went to and fro).

GP – You said it was Kate who provided the book for you?
AP – Yes, she sent it to me.

GP – It was translated by whom?
AP doesn't know.

GP - asks if AP understands Portuguese.

(The judge overrules question saying that it's clear AP doesn't speak Portuguese.

GP asks another question which is overruled because it is related to British Justice.)

GP - asks if the constitution of the arguido status created a secondary trauma.
AP says the McCanns were confused about not having been made arguidos sooner, because it was quite normal in an investigation for people close to the victim to be investigated first. He says they expected it.

GP suggests (as her question wasn't answered) that AP consult his notes since he saw the McCanns before and after they were made arguidos. Has he notes about his sessions with Kate when she was an arguida?
AP says that being made an arguido wasn't traumatic, but the things that were said, the way to interview them were.

GP – Can it be considered as a secondary trauma?
AP says it is a continuation.

GP – Do you know if the fact of being made an arguido was related to the suspicion of some crime?
AP says he knows some facts, they weren't surprised.

GP – What is the difference with the book?
AP doesn't understand.

GP repeats her question.
AP – They were surprised with the book because the final Report said they were innocent.

GP – Have you read the final report?
AP says "no".

GP – How do you know then what its conclusions are?
AP says the McCanns told him.

GP says the investigation was closed because of lack of evidence in respect of what the actual crime was. How did this affect the emotional state of people?
AP – They were disappointed the case was closed. This meant than the case might never again be investigated. However, they were relieved that they were no longer considered to have been involved; they were no longer official suspects.

GP says that the final Report states that there is no evidence, neither positive nor negative. Can you speak about the speculations concerning the case?
AP says there was much human interest in this case. Everybody had an opinion about it. He says it's like when there's a football match (note: a similar comparison in Ms Stilwell's statement on 20.09.13)

GP – In what way is the publication of this book different? What kind of secondary trauma did it lead to? Did the opinions of the world favour the book or not?
AP says that the difference lay in 1) the importance of who wrote the book and 2) the violation of the secrecy of the instruction as the book was published very quickly.

GP – The McCanns said they didn't believe the book was written in 3 days?
Do you know if the book was publicised before the final Report was released?
AP says "yes", was aware the book was going to be published.

c) Gonçalo Amaral lawyer's questions

SO – About your competences and professional capacities, what does a specialist of trauma do?
AP says he works with groups, families and individuals.

SO – Is a disappearance a trauma?
AP says "yes".

SO – Did you advise the McCanns to promote news of the disappearance using the media?
AP says it wasn't his advice. The McCanns were advised by an organisation which specialises in missing people.

SO – What part does excessive publicity play in primary trauma? Does it increase the stress and the anxiety?
AP – Yes it does.

SO – Do you know the importance of publicity in the case?
AP – says yes, I know, I was there.

SO – Would you agree it doesn't favour recuperation in the long term?
AP – The media are useful in the beginning.

SO – The motivation was to find the little girl?
AP – Yes, it was to look for her.

SO – Is it not true that the principal factor of the secondary trauma was because the McCanns were considered suspects?
AP – No.

(The judge now explains that "suspect" is different from "arguido". "Arguido" means there are indications that will lead a person to have to defend her/himself. It's a statute created for the defence of the person. "Suspect" means a hypothesis is formed about someone.
The judge repeats that which AP had already indicated and that was if the McCanns hadn't been investigated as suspects then they would have thought the investigation was incomplete.
There is now a long debate between the judge and SO. SO says he has to insist because the witness uses too much hearsay in his responses. The judge points out that there is no need to repeat the same question over simply in order to see if the answer will vary.)

SO – Was the fact that they were considered arguidos the principal reason for the secondary trauma?
AP says "no".

SO – You said psychology was one of the elements comprising your degree, does this allow you to give evaluation of psychological situations?
AP says "yes". The Social Science degree he has permits it.

SO – Did you have contact with the McCanns in the UK by phone e-mail?
AP says yes, between 2011 and 2013.

SO – So what occurred between 2007 and 2011?
AP says he saw the family regularly in their home or in his office up to 2009. Thereafter only when they contacted him.

SO – For support or psychological evaluation?
AP – Support.

The judge (Maria Emília de Melo e Castro) is now asking

MC – For how long have you been in this line of work?
AP – I started in 1993. I have been working for the institution for 7 years.

MC – In which situations have you worked?
AP – Families with domestic violence, maltreatment, children taken from their families (this is a bit like grieving), families who have lost a child. He works for the UK organisation called "Missing People".

MC – Which strong negative feeling did Kate McCann report to you in the summer of 2009?
AP – She was afraid, she wished she wasn't there; she talked of killing herself as an option.


Libel Trial McCann v Gonçalo Amaral - Day 3 Witness No 2
The testimony as it happened...
(19.09.2013, 12:45 pm) João Melchior Gomes via video-conference. He retired (November 2010) but has the title of Deputy Attorney General (AG) and is addressed as Procurador Geral Adjunto. He must nevertheless swear to tell the truth (but no bible and no gesture). He is the (only) person who effectively signed the AG Report.
The judge asks him if he is aware of what the court is judging.
MG responds that it is a trial against Gonçalo Amaral.
The judge reminds him that there are three other defendants in the libel case and asks what MG's involvement in the investigation amounted to.
MG says that in September 2007 he was charged with the task of supervising the work of the Procurador da Republica, José de Magalhães e Menezes. He was then in Evora as Deputy AG but also visited Portimão and Praia da Luz a number of times. He had two contacts with Gonçalo Amaral. The first was related to the intervention of the British cadaver dogs (Eddie and Keela) and the subsequent forensic analysis of samples. The second was through Guilhermino da Encarnação, the PJ Director in Faro, they had a meeting with the investigation team in Portimão.
The judge asks whether his relationship with Gonçalo Amaral was personal or professional.
MG answers "only professional".
1) McCann family lawyer, Isabel Duarte, is the first to question the witness.
(ID explains that the issue at stake is the effect which Goncalo Amaral's book had following its publication in July 2008.) 

ID asks whether MG is aware of any developments subsequent to the release of the AG Report which could have led to the reopening of the case.
MG says no new element emerged which the Public Ministry was aware of. There was information received but it was found to be irrelevant to the case. That was the situation at least up until November 2010, when he retired.
ID asks if the AG Report reflects the results of the criminal investigation up to July 2008.
MG answers that the Report is based on evidence (elementos de prova) gathered by the PJ, GNR, etc. and also, by Leicestershire Police and others in the UK, He says that thousands of people were contacted.
ID – Was all the information made available to the public?
MG says "yes", except for documents relating to people investigated or convicted of sex crimes.
ID – Are the facts mentioned in his book (Amarals) and in the documentary part of the investigation?
MG says he didn't read the book nor did he watch the documentary.
(A momentary silence envelops the court room. ID then states that, if that is the case then she will refer to the PJ Files 2587-2602 (Vol X) dated 10 SEP 2007 (Report by Inspector Tavares de Almeida). She doesn't have a copy of the documents however and neither does the Judge. The Court clerk hurriedly exits the Court in an attempt to find them.)
ID – The book and the documentary are based on the conclusions of this Report, do you remember it?
MG says he doesn't. He says that the first formal meeting he was part of was on the 12th September 2007. He says that intermediate Reports were signed by Magalhães e Menezes. He knows that Tavares de Almeida for some reason ceased collaborating.
He says his confidence is in the AG Report and he doesn't see any reason to alter its findings. He can only say that it was written in close collaboration with Magalhães e Menezes.
He remembers it was never understood at the time however how Robert Murat became a suspect merely on the basis of a British journalist's statement.
ID – But Robert Murat isn't "autor" (plaintiff)!
2) Defence lawyers.
a) Guerra & Paz's lawyer's questions
GP – Was it normal to nominate another Public Prosecutor to supervise the process?
MG observes that he was nominated as Deputy AG.
(Meanwhile the Court clerk is back with a few CDs saying she found no paper copy of the Report. The Judge says she doesn't see the point in any event)
The judge (Maria Emília de Melo e Castro) is now asking
MC – Therefore the content of the DVD doesn't include all the files?
MG says that files relating to sex offenders and those involved in sex related crimes were suppressed.
MC – Can we conclude therefore that, except for the identity of certain persons who were ruled out, a complete copy of the PJ files was released to the public?
MG hesitates a few seconds and answers "yes".
Evidence ends.

Libel Trial McCann v Gonçalo Amaral - Day 3 Witness No 3

The testimony as it happened...
(19.09.2013, 14:45pm) Alípio Ribeiro via video-conference. In 2007 he was the National Director of the Polícia Judiciária (PJ). He left the PJ in May 2008, i.e. before the end of the investigation and obtained the status of Deputy AG (Procurador Geral Adjunto). He now works as a Ministry Inspector.
The Judge, Maria Emília de Melo e Castro, asks him if he is aware of what the court is judging?
AR says he knows through the media.
The judge asks about his knowledge of the case?
AR says that he was aware of it, but had no part in it since that responsibility fell to the Faro PJ Director, Guilhermino da Encarnação. He says he is aware of the content of the AG Report only through the media.
The judge asks whether he has met the McCanns?
AR says "never".
The judge asks if he knows Gonçalo Amaral?
AR says he knows Doctor Amaral (sic), but had rare contacts with him and exclusively on a professional basis.
1) McCann family lawyer, Isabel Duarte, is the only lawyer to question the witness.
ID asks whether AR read the Amaral book?
AR answers "no".
ID asks whether AR watched the documentary?
AR answers he did not watch it.
(Nobody has anything further to add.)

Evidence ends.


Libel Trial McCann v Gonçalo Amaral - Day 3 Witness No 4

The testimony as it happened...

(19.09.2013, 15 pm) Cláudia Nogueira, Managing Director of the Portuguese Public Relations and Communications Company, Plus - People Development.  From 2009 to 2011 – she was the Executive Director of the Portuguese private agency Lift Consulting, a Company engaged by the McCanns.

Her relationship with the couple was initially professional but with time it became personal. She knows Gonçalo Amaral only "publicly" (they never had personal contact).

1) McCann family lawyer, Isabel Duarte, is the first to question the witness.

ID – Why did you leave Lift Consulting?
CN answers that the media pressure was too great and that her work in support of the McCanns was very difficult. They were very worn down.

ID – In the course of your profession did you have access to statistics?
CN said she had.

ID – Do you know if at least 2.2 million people watched the documentary in Portugal?
CN says she doesn't remember the exact number but she knows it was 50% of the audience share.

ID – Do you still work as a communication manager?
CN says she does. She says that people focused on this program, which is rare.

ID asks if the attention of social communication decreased afterwards. (note: she might have meant "care for Madeleine")
CN thinks there were thousands of news items about the Amaral book and documentary.  There were about 2000 for the book and about 1000 for the documentary.

ID – Were these news items suggestive of any other solutions for the case?
CN No unfortunately.  It wasn't well balanced. All the focus was on the book's conclusions.

ID – Did you try to offer a counterpoint?
CN – Yes, but the social communication wasn't looking for contradictions.

ID – Was the documentary copied in English on the Web without authorization?
CN says it was.

2) Defence lawyers.

a) TVI lawyers’ questions.

TVI – Did you know that TVI wanted also to broadcast the Channel 4 documentary (Emma Loach's one, "Madeleine was here")?
CN says she knows.

TVI – You said the attention associated with the book didn't diminish after the publication. Was that everywhere?
CN says she meant "in Portugal". She adds the attention was focused mainly on Gonçalo Amaral and this included the UK.

TVI – What about the news on the governmental support for the case?
CN – The news in Portugal were interpretations of the various facts.

TVI – But the facts never were clarified.
CN – They should have been.

TVI – But there are not many facts.

b) Valentim de Carvalho (DVD production/distribution) lawyer's questions

VC – Before 2009, were the McCanns clients of Lift Consulting?
CN says "no".

VC – Did they contract Lift Consulting in order to spread their initiatives and positions?
CN says they wanted to remind the public of the facts of the disappearance. They were trying to counter the propaganda and the theories that some newspapers were printing.

(VC says it's the first time he has heard such a thing)

c) Guerra & Paz's lawyer's questions

GP asks whether she did some research when she started to work for the McCanns
CN says "yes".

GP here refers to the Sept 2009 Providencia Cautelar (Injunction) that led to the ban of GA's book. She alludes to the fact there was a need for witnesses.

GP – You spoke of over 2 million people watching the documentary corresponding to 50% of the audience share, but MarkTest's published share was 23%.
CN says the content of some news was favouring definitively Gonçalo Amaral.

GP – Do you have a number concerning the news on sightings which mention the GA's theory?
CN says they're many, but she doesn't know how many.

(GP's lawyer asks to dictate a request. She observes the witness indicated an approximate number for the news reports about the book (see above, approx 2000). The witness couldn't say how many news reports were published in relation to sightings or leads to the whereabouts of Madeleine or which reported a summary of GA's thesis)
 (GP asks the Court to instruct the witness to produce the documents she refers to)

The Judge asks CN if she has access to these news reports.
CN responds that they are kept at the agency (Lift Consulting). She says she has only got a few documents with her.

The Judge asks if she will be able to get the others.
CN says she can.

(The Judge then agrees to give her 15 days to produce the documents)
(The judge points out that the issue under consideration is whether the attention of the media and the public decreased with the publication of the Amaral book. This is a question to which the Court will have to give an answer. Nevertheless the Judge doubts the documents the witness has will be helpful in this or would contribute positively in any way to the resolution of the case. However, since all parties agree, she agrees the request)
 (The Judge reminds the Court that there are two types of news reports:
•   Those related to the publication of the Amaral book.
•   Those related to the sightings, etc. that also mention the Amaral thesis of death and cover up.
 The argument being that the "sighting" part is good for the McCanns who try to communicate positive things while the other is counterproductive to the search.)

d) Santos Oliveira (GA lawyer) questions

SO – Was your job the transmission of information (to the media) or the management of the public image of your clients?
CN says it was the transmission of positive information about the issues concerning Madeleine.

SO – Were all your publications published?
CN – No, some weren't.

SO – You said to Dra. Isabel Duarte that the news concerning the book wasn't contradicted. You also said that the sightings news had a contradictory part. How do you equate all this?
CN says that when the news was about the McCanns, it was always contradicted. When it was on Gonçalo Amaral, it wasn't.

SO – How did you work on the news?
CN says she translated the British news in Portuguese and adapted it for the Portuguese public and the Portuguese culture. This was her job.

SO – Did the Amaral book not boost the debate on the disappearance?
CN answers "no".

SO – Did you read the book and think that whoever reads might think that GA speaks the truth?
CN says she read the book.

Evidence ends.

Libel trial McCann v Gonçalo Amaral - Day 4 Witness No 1

(20.09.2013 10am) (The session starts with a request from the defence concerning a plaintive witness, the President of the Bar Association (bastonário da ordem dos advogados) since 2008, António Marinho Pinto (MP) who was supposed to give evidence this afternoon.
MP was cited as a witness in the libel writ but in January 2012 determined that he would submit a written statement, which was his privilege as bastonário. He was however obliged to inform the Court of his intentions.
On the 20th January 2013, MP declared his wish to waive his right to make a written submission and declared that he would be present to testify in the court room.
At the last minute, MP let the lawyer for the plaintive, Isabel Duarte (ID), know that he had changed his mind. He now wished to deposit a written statement on the basis of his privilege. This change would bring his written statement late to the proceedings and would not afford the defence an opportunity to properly consider his evidence or to put questions to him regarding same.
The judge said MP should have revealed his intention during the 10 legal days so lost his right because he didn't do so. It now falls to the lawyer for the plaintive to ensure that MP appears personally in order to be examined in the final allegations session.)
10:30pm The testimony as it happens...
The first witness of the session is Michael Wright, an administrator, whose wife is Kate McCann's cousin. He has known Kate since she was ten years of age and Gerald McCann since 2001. They used to have regular contact.
He went to PDL in May 2007 and many times during that summer (10 weeks). Since the McCanns returned to the UK, he visits them regularly. They spent the first Christmas without Madeleine together. He tries to give them some comfort and calls or e-mails or sends sms messages at least once a week.

The Judge asks how regularly he had contact with the McCanns in the period from 2008-2009.
MW says he saw them once a month. He adds he was monitoring e-mails that came to the Madeleine site.

The Judge asks whether he read the book of Gonçalo Amaral.
MW answers he read a translation on the internet.

The Judge asks "when".
MW Very shortly after the book was published.

The Judge asks whether he watched the documentary on the same theme.
MW says he did on the internet.

The Judge asks whether he knows the author of the book.
MW says "only by hearsay".

The Judge asks whether his family relationships will influence his testimony.
MW answer "yes".

The Judge asks whether it will prevent him from telling the truth.
MW says "no".

1) McCann family lawyer, Isabel Duarte, is the first to question the witness.

ID - We are here to analyse the effect on the McCann's family life of the publication of GA's book and the documentary inspired by this book. Can you tell the court what you know about this?
MW After the lifting of the arguido status they (the McCanns) were well, though no authority was searching for Madeleine any more. It was very important that people looked for her in Portugal. According to the book they were somehow involved in the disappearance of Madeleine. Therefore the book hampered the search for her.
(ID interrupts MW because she can't hear him (there's a motor outside, perhaps cutting the grass). ID makes known the lines of questioning she intends to pursue but the Judge reminds her that witness statements which are off topic will not be permitted)

ID - asks whether the investigation was hampered because of GA's book and an article in the Correio da Manhã (Portuguese Morning Post newspaper).
MW says it's what he understood.

ID - What happened when the files were released?
MW The McCanns had to have them translated in order to study them. They had to lead a campaign to motivate the public to search for Madeleine.

ID - Do you know whether there was an end to the investigation?
MW It was public knowledge that the investigation was stopped.

ID - Did this event occur because of the publication of the book?
MW The content of the book was conflicting with what was in the files. He says he would be speculating if he answered the question.

ID - Don't you have knowledge of this direct relationship?

(The Judge interrupts and asks whether the book was published before or after the archiving of the files)

MW says it was after.

The Judge – Then how could the book interfere with the investigation?
MW stays silent.

The Judge repeats the question.
MW says it didn't but it interfered with the following investigations made by the private investigators hired by Kate and Gerry.

(The Judge overrules ID who wanted to know how the book influenced the McCann investigation.
ID starts asking if because of the.... but the Judge overrules again arguing she reveals the answer in the question. She adds that questions should be asked in an appropriate way)

ID - In which circumstances did the McCanns learn about the book and the documentary?
MW says they knew before the shelving of the case, that a book would be published. About the documentary, they were told it had been broadcast on TV in April 2009.

ID - When did they read the book and watch the documentary?
MW – They read the book when I sent them the translation that was on the internet in August 2008. They heard about the documentary in March/April 2009. There was a big campaign in Praia da Luz, they needed people to support them and the documentary had a negative effect on that.

ID - When they learnt about it, how did they react? Was it sadness or pain? Were they socially and professionally affected?

(GA's lawyer, SO, interrupts asking the Judge to ask the witness what is the paper he is reading)

MW says that they are notes about feelings, etc. to remember.

The Judge asks what is actually in the notes.
MW repeats that it is to help him remember feelings and special contacts.

(SO dictates the court clerk a request for a copy of the paper listing feelings is joined to the process for appreciation by the court.
GP's lawyer completes quoting the Law that insist on the importance of testimonies being spontaneous.
ID protests arguing the witness has the right to have notes with dates and facts. She asks that only the Court checks the paper.
The Judge concludes saying the witness himself says the notes concern feelings and contacts with the McCanns, which might cast doubt upon spontaneity, moreover because the witness is part of the McCann family. She concludes it's important to clarify totally what these notes are in the interest of the witness' credibility.
The Judge asks the court clerk to make photocopies (note: it's an A4 page, with parts underlined in green).

ID - resumes her question about the feelings that the book and the documentary provoked.
MW When the book was launched, the McCanns were trying to launch a campaign and their own proper investigation. The contacts they had in Portugal said the publicity about the book was huge and that there was also some publicity in the UK. This provoked much distress in the family.

(The court clerk comes back with a lot of photocopies and distributes them to all. ID asks for a recess in order to read the document. Everybody reads.
ID observes the notes are on stationary paper. She asks the witness where that paper comes from. The witness answers that it's from the hotel where he stays. He took notes to help his memory)

ID - When you speak of the stress and the anger, how was this expressed in the behaviour of the McCanns?
MW When the book came out, the reactions were of much anger. Kate was upset and cried. She felt Madeleine was betrayed.

ID - Why?
MW - Because of the thesis of the book according to which Madeleine was dead and her body had been concealed. At the time they were very keen to re-establish a normal family life, Gerry was working again full time and they were starting a campaign. The stress increased between the book and the documentary in March/April 2009. They were preparing a new campaign before the second anniversary. Anger and anxiety overwhelmed them because of the documentary. He says there always was activity on the internet (e-mails...) but they became very subdued.

ID - What does "negative e-mail" mean?
MW says it refers to all sorts of conspiracy theories that appeared on various forums.

ID - asks if the witness can name some of these forums.
MW The 3 Arguidos and Madeleine Foundation. He says Tony Bennett invited Gonçalo Amaral to do conferences in the UK. These forums were full of speculation focused on GA's conclusions. People said those conclusions must be true because GA had been in charge of the initial investigation.

ID - When?
MW – Activity was increased and heavy in March/April 2009.

ID - Did the McCanns learn about these forums? How?
MW They learned through me, the family members who monitored the activity and their support group. I wondered whether it was worse to let them know or not to. I didn't want to add up to their pain, but a significant change happened. There were several instances of threats to kidnap the twins on the 3 Arguidos site. Then I couldn't but speak. There was a chat where a poster suggested someone should kidnap a twin to get to the truth.

ID - Is this dialogue on the forum? Can you get a copy?
MW says he has a copy and can deliver it.

ID - asks if it's possible to put the paper copy on the internet?
MW thinks the 3A doesn't exist anymore. He says the McCanns took action against this threat and against the Madeleine Foundation. The main page of MF had the 5 conclusions.

ID asks whether he has a copy.
MW says he has screen shots. He adds he had to tell his cousins about the threats. They reported them to the UK police (Leicestershire Police). He was visited by a police officer on the matter.

ID - Was a process formally investigated?
MW had only one contact with the police. He doesn't know what happened afterwards.

ID - What consequence did this have on the McCanns family life and in particular that relating to the twins?
MW Around the time of the negative e-mails and threats, which was when they tried to launch the campaign, we went away for the second anniversary with Kate and Gerry to a remote house in the countryside. Anniversaries and Christmases were never very good. But in 2009 it was horrible. When they arrived at the cottage, they heard through friends they had in Praia da Luz that the 10,000 posters they had distributed and put up in the Algarve had been ripped and torn. Their friends had called them on the phone to say it was awful and that there were some people who were saying that the child was dead.
The fact that people in Praia da Luz believed the conclusions of the book was terrible for them because they were already depressed. It was a time of great anger and sadness. During the week-end we talked about the effect of the book.

ID - What did they say?
MW That was the first time I ever heard Gerry say he couldn't manage going on any more. I never heard him speak that way before. It was an upsetting conversation.

ID - Why?
MW He and Kate are incredibly strong. They had been dealing with it all for two years. There had been the media backlash when they were made arguidos. But they always left the rest of the family and the helpers out of it. Now Gerry was saying that it was too much to carry on. It was a great shock for me. It was at the end of a night. The following day Gerry said he had no choice. I wondered how much more they could take.

ID - How did the revelations of that week-end evolve?
MW says he had a similar conversation with Gerry about being down because people believed Madeleine was dead.

ID - Did they feel deeply ashamed at being considered responsible for her death and the concealment of her body? Did they feel like cowards?
MW says "no, because they knew the truth". However he saw how Kate changed last week in Lisbon and how she couldn't smile or properly relax. She couldn't have come on her own because she feared people think they are responsible. Her behaviour in Portugal is very different.

ID - In what way was the relationship between the parents and the twins influenced?
MW The threats made them more vigilant, in particular when they started to use the internet at school or at home. Amélie googled her name and told Kate and Gerry she had found a site, Madeleine Foundation, which was at the top. So they realized they had to control the use of the internet.

ID - Did she find internet pages related to the book?
MW believes so, a page with the conclusions of the book. Ah but he doesn't know whether she opened the page. He says in the future they'll search and they'll find that her parents killed (sic) Madeleine.

ID - Is that a daily pressure on the McCanns?
MW is not sure he can answer that. He says that probably their friends as the friends of his children comment on this at school. It's inevitable they'll know the conclusions.

ID (seems not to have understood) repeats – Is it a daily pressure for the couple?
MW No.

ID - Is Kate depressed?

(The Judge overrules, saying this is a question for a doctor)

ID - Have you read the criminal investigation Report?
MW says he didn't read it all, he read the conclusions

ID - Do the facts reported by Gonçalo Amaral in his book and in the documentary correspond to the facts of the investigation?
MW says "no", in no way.

ID - Why?
MW The PJ Report made after Gonçalo Amaral was removed from the inquiry and after the McCanns were made arguidos concludes that there was no evidence that they were involved.

ID - This means that the book doesn't correspond with the investigation facts?
MW The thesis that Madeleine died and the parents concealed her body contradicts the AG Report which led to the lifting of the arguido status. His understanding is that the PJ files say that Madeleine could be dead but there was no evidence that the parents were involved. This is contradictory with the conclusions of GA's book.

ID - Is it the same with the documentary?
MW says "yes".

ID - Was this documentary subtitled on the internet?
MW knows it was published on the internet with subtitles in English.

ID - Do you have anything else you wish to tell the Court within the questions that you have been asked?
MW says that, in terms of impact on the family, he saw in 2009 an e-mail from a British broadcaster, Channel 5, which offered Gonçalo Amaral €80,000 for an interview. He adds that Kate's reaction was that it confirmed that all this had to do with money and not justice.

(ID wants to know more... but the Judge overrules because it's not known whether such an interview occurred)

(It is 12:30, the interpreter is tired, the Judge suggests a 5 minutes recess, but the interpreter wishes more time. The Judge then decides to bring the proceedings to a close for lunch and resume the session at 1.45pm)

(Everybody is in the Court room by 1.50pm, the Judge arrives at 2pm)

2) Defence lawyers.

a) TVI lawyers’ questions.

TVI - Have you watched the documentary on TVI?
MW says "no", he watched it on the internet.

TVI - How do you know it is the TVI one?
MW says he's sure as much as he can be

TVI - Why? Did it have the TVI logo on it?
MW says he doesn't remember.

TVI - Before the publication of the book and the broadcast of the documentary, were there opinions and e-mails that weren't usual, normal, that were different?
MW says there were very scary internet chats and e-mails that speculated, but not only on the McCanns. He said that what changed is that the e-mails became more specific.

TVI - Is Gonçalo Amaral's theory widely known, is it known everywhere?
MW says it is.

TVI - Does almost everybody know his theory?
MW says a great number of people know it. Any person who knows about the McCanns know the theory of Gonçalo Amaral.

TVI - Just the people who are interested in the matter?
MW Yes, the documentary and the book are very well known everywhere in Portugal and in the UK.

TVI - One of the main preoccupations of the family was that, when the book was launched, they were preparing a campaign...

(The Judge overrules)

TVI - They were collaborating in the realisation of another documentary, theirs. This documentary wasn't broadcast by TVI, in spite of the agreement between TVI and Channel 4.
MW says they decided it wasn't appropriate to broadcast their documentary on the same channel that would broadcast GA's documentary.

TVI - Who are "they"?
MW asks in what sense, then understands and says "Kate and Gerry".

TVI - Were these negotiations for the broadcasting of the Channel 4 documentary before the Amaral documentary was broadcast?
MW says he doesn't know.

The Judge asks whether, before the book was published, they were speculations on forums.
MW says they were many strange, bizarre speculations on who was involved, on the family, on supporters.

The Judge asks whether there was speculation on the cover up of death.
MW Some people, but very limited. Some e-mails would say that Kate was this and Gerry was that, and so on.

The Judge asks from where came the information that fuelled this speculation.
MW says that information was accepted because it's normal to suspect the family in cases like this. People e-mailed to (Madeleine's) website with this idea.

The Judge asks did these rumours have something to do with the arguido status?
MW sighs. He says that, as he was monitoring the e-mails, he observed an increase in speculation. But when the book was launched there was a huge increase of a specific nature.

The Judge – What did the people conclude from the arguido status?
MW stays silent. Then he says there were e-mails saying it confirmed what they suspected, but the e-mails with specific threats only occurred after the book was published.

(AG's lawyer now criticises the translation offered by the interpreter, he says the answers don't correspond with the question)

The Judge asks can you explain why the arguido status didn't provoke many e-mails.
MW says it's very common and normal that the parents are the first suspects. He adds that being arguidos wasn't a preoccupation for the McCanns.

The Judge asks if he has any idea what led to them being made arguidos. Was it because the parents are the first suspects?
MW says "yes".

The Judge asks wasn’t there something during the investigation that led to their constitution as arguidos.
MW Not particularly. He adds he wasn't involved in that matter.

The Judge states that two facts were established:
1) The British police dogs detected the scent of human blood and also that consistent with a cadaver bring present.
2) These dogs detected the smell of human blood in the car rented by the McCanns.
The Judge asks whether these facts are of general knowledge in the UK.
MW Yes, they were, in 2007.

The Judge asks whether it was only before the shelving.
MW says there was speculation at the time, but analyses after the release of the files showed there was no conclusive evidence one way or another.

The Judge agrees but asks whether it wasn't the dogs that led people to speculate.
MW – Yes, the media speculated a lot at that time because there was a big coverage. But when the book was published it was worse because the files form a very great number of pages and the book doesn't. Then few people read the files.

The Judge asks whether the witness is aware the investigation wasn't conclusive?
MW sighs, and then adds that anybody who reads the files is aware of that, but those who read the files are few.

The Judge observes that if nothing happened since then, this shows that there's still no conclusion.
If some conclusion had been made, wouldn't someone have been accused.
MW objects that the book was published immediately after the release of the files and was written by a PJ Inspector. Moreover he says GA's book can be read in a day.

The Judge asks if people believe more in the book than in the PJ?
MW – Oh yes, absolutely! There were more newspaper reports on the book than on the files.

(TVI says that there were more documentaries than the GA one)

The Judge asks if the Channel 4 documentary had repercussions in the public opinion, in blogs, etc.?
MW We always had people who supported us.

The Judge asks whether this documentary changed the opinion of those who were convinced by GA's theory.
MW says "no". He says the Channel 4 documentary (Emma Loach's one) wasn't just to say that Madeleine should be looked for and she was alive. Channel 4 didn't conclude so. The point was to challenge the thesis of the book.

b) Guerra & Paz's lawyer's questions

GP - Do the British know the official investigation was inconclusive?
MW says the majority don't know.

The Judge observes that the witness keeps on saying that the conclusions of the Amaral book came on top of the Attorney General's Report. She wonders whether the people have knowledge that an official investigation exists. Are people aware that "we don't know what happened"?
MW – Some, yes. But most people think that Gonçalo Amaral's conclusions are true.

(ID intervenes asking whether the witness has knowledge of everything contained within the AG Final Report)

(The Judge interrupts and reminds that the witness had already indicated that he read the conclusions)

(Note: there seems to have been some confusion between the PJ and the AG final Reports)

The Judge – Did you read it all? Do you understand the arguments which led to the discarding of the dogs' results?
MW says he doesn't feel competent to answer. Why should he read it all if he knows the McCanns are innocent?

The Judge asks the witness if he remembers the reasons that lead to the discarding of the dogs' results.
MW thinks it had to do with Low Copy Number DNA. He says that without forensic corroboration the findings of the cadaver dog were only intelligence, they were not evidence of anything.

ID - asks if the average citizen is aware of this in the UK?
MW says the AG Final Report explains why the arguido status was lifted.
(The Judge states that the Final Report is evidence in itself and obviously not a judgement.)

(ID - insists that the witness gives explanations.)

The Judge asks if the UK public know the content of the technical descriptions that are in the Final Report.
MW says that anyone who is interested will find out.

ID asks whether the Ch4 documentary was promoted by the McCanns or was an initiative of Channel 4.
MW sighs. He doesn't know.

(TVI - Why, if things are like this – if people base themselves only on the conclusions –, a review in the UK...
Without waiting for a reaction, the lawyer says he withdraws the question)

(ID dictates that MW will deliver the documents he has, relating to the internet threats)

(VC criticises the selective choice of documents, with biased criteria)

(SO observes the documents must be elements of proof in the remit defined for the process. He thinks they have nothing to do with it. This forum 3A doesn't exist anymore and what is the legitimacy of the documents? He wonders also who were the authors of those blogs)

(The Judge concludes saying the documents can be delivered to the plaintiffs, but are irrelevant for the Court. She says the Court cannot bring to the process documents given by the witness to corroborate their own testimony. The plaintiffs can have access to the documents and use them as necessary)

(Therefore the Court doesn't have to notify the witness to deliver the documents. The Court also does not accept that a witness testifies with assistance from a document (she refers to the "memory help" paper on feelings).)
Evidence ends.