Historic Registry

This post is about Anne Guedes’ transcriptions of the Libel Trial McCann v Gonçalo Amaral, Days 1 and 2.

Firstly, we would like to send our most heartfelt thank you to Anne for her hard and altruistic work.

We would like to leave here a registry for posterity of these transcriptions, for two reasons.

The first and most evident is the content. It speaks for itself and should be readily available to all who want to access it from now on.

The second, less obvious, is because of the fact that Anne’s transcriptions are themselves also historic in one other way.

They are proof of one fundamental point in an event of major relevance: the media, that various interests’ paid parrots, was surpassed by a single person and the echo of her work in what is the most important information platform: the internet.

In this particular case, Anne Guedes not only has rendered the media useless as she has foiled its tactic of keeping the issue as low-profile as possible and the general population as equally uninformed and misinformed.

People are, individually, more and more finding information from different sources, which includes the mainstream media referred to, and are starting, more and more, to dislike being treated as ignorant.

Once it finally realizes this fact, that same media might will also realize that if they return to truthful reporting they may continue to guarantee their survival in this ever evolving world.

We can only say we can't endorse the transcripts as a totally accurate record as we were not present at the trial, but we are grateful that someone did take the time and effort to provide this information, as no mainstream media has done so.

Martin Brunt abruptly stopped tweeting.

It doesn't mention tears, giving straight facts, which is what one expects in a transcript.

The accounts we read in the press may differ or add details not included here, but we have learned just how the media, especially in the UK, report on this case, with spin, lies or both.

The evidence is now recorded by the Court and Mr Amaral and the various defense lawyers know what was said. We will eventually hear a full account.

Here are the transcripts:

SUSAN HUBBARD

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

The testimony as it happened...

(12.09.2013, 11am) Susan Hubbard Occupation mid-wife. She speaks in a combination of Portuguese (more) and English (less). Mrs Hubbard admits her friendship with Kate McCann can influence her evidence.

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

ID –  In this trial we're discussing the effects on the McCann family of the publication of GA's book and the documentary inspired by this book. As a close friend of KMC, can you tell how this family reacted to the thesis of the book?
SH answers that they are very strong persons, but any claims that their daughter is dead is terrible for them because it means she isn't looked for any more. She says the book finishes like it starts, not offering an alternative theory.

One of the defence lawyers asks precise questions and answers. The judge overrules.

ID – What impact had the book on their life, on their personal life, health, relationships? 
SH answers that they were angry in having to spend a lot of energy due to the allegations in the book instead expelling their energies looking for Madeleine. She stated that everybody in Portugal believed the book.

Defence lawyer protests and this time the judge admits the question is too vague.

ID – How did they find out about the book? What did they feel when they saw the book and the documentary? 
SH doesn't know how they found out about the book, but says the people who saw the documentary believed a man who stated he said the truth. She says it made the McCanns angry, sad, scared and destroyed their hope.

ID – What have you observed in relation to the McCanns and the twins? 
SH states they are good parents, the twins are happy, they have a normal life. She wonders, if in the future they read the book, what they will think about their parents.

ID – The book is published on the Internet, in English. 
SH remarks the access to the book is very easy.

ID – This book and the documentary arouse suspicions? Could the twins have doubts about what happened? 
SH thinks so.

ID reads an extract from GA's book (p.193) 
Burla ou abuso de confiança?
Num momento de relaxe de uma destas reuniões, terei cometido um deslize ou, quiçá, terei sido inoportuno e pouco diplomático. Preocupado com a possibilidade de o casal McCann estar, de alguma forma, envolvido no desaparecimento de sua filha, e quando raciocinava quanto aos tipos de crime que os mesmos pudessem ter praticado, apercebi-me de um facto. Se, realmente, se viesse a confirmar qualquer tipo de responsabilidade do casal McCann, então poderia estar em causa, relativamente ao fundo criado para as buscas por Madeleine, que atingia mais de 2 milhões de libras, um crime de burla ou abuso de confiança. Abriu-se então o debate e, de facto, com as premissas indicadas, os crimes de burla qualificada ou abuso de confiança poderiam existir, mas Portugal não teria jurisdição para investigar e julgar por tal crime. Esta pertenceria ao Reino Unido, por o fundo se encontrar registado naquele país. Os colegas ingleses aperceberam-se então de uma dura realidade: a forte possibilidade de terem um crime para investigar no seu país, tendo como eventuais suspeitos o casal McCann, coisa que parecia não lhes agradar muito. 
Translates as >
Fraud or abuse of trust?
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.

ID – Did they react badly to this extract? 

The judge criticizes the suggestion of the answer in the question.

SH doesn't know. She doesn't think they concluded anything from this paragraph. She thinks the McCanns didn't fear a UK investigation and hoped their truth would be spoken about in Portugal.

2) Defence lawyers.

a) TVI lawyers’ questions.

TVI – You said that "everybody in Portugal believes the book". What makes you think this? 
SH says that in PDL some people believe Kate and Gerald, but outside they don't. 

TVI – Do you suppose so? Have you any objective basis to think so? 
SH says she has known a Portuguese nurse, in the hospital where she works in Canada, who believes what the book says.

TVI – Do you know if this book and the documentary were broadcast at the same moment? 
SH says when one and the other were launched.

TVI – Are the thesis identical? 
SH notes that in the documentary the actors representing Kate and Gerald were depicted drinking a lot, but the underlying theories are similar. She adds one must pay for the book whereas the access to the documentary is free.

TVI – Have you seen "Madeleine was here"? 
SH did, as many people.

TVI – Then why should one believe more a documentary than the other? 
SH argues the Amaral documentary had more audience.

TVI – Why? 
SH doesn't know. She hasn't watched all the programs.

TVI – Then why do you think that one is more watched than the other?
The judge overrules : the issue is "what kind of effect ?"

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

VC – You don't know if Madeleine died. Your conviction is she's alive. The idea that something happened to her other than abduction is also a possibility. Do you think the McCanns are angry because such a theory exists that is different from theirs? 
SH hesitates, then says she doesn't think so, refers to the loss of hope.

VC – Have you seen the TVI documentary, have you read the final conclusion?
The judge overrules.

c) Guerra & Paz's lawyer's questions

GP first asks if SH knows GA and when she met the McCanns for the first time. 
SH answers she once saw GA somewhere in PDL and met the McCanns a few days after her arrival in PDL (3 days after Madeleine disappeared).

GP – How did the couple react when they were made arguidos? 
SH says the McCanns didn't fear the arguido status because they knew they were innocent.

GP – We could then expect the same reaction after the book was published. You, as a close friend who saw them almost every day, must know better than anyone. How did they react when they were made arguidos? 
SH answers they wanted to protect the twins and didn't know what to do. They thought of taking them to Spain. They reacted with sadness (GMC with anger) because the police wouldn't be looking for their daughter.

GP – Did the Fund and the private investigators go on searching for Madeleine? 
SH answers yes.

GP – And after the book was published? 
SH answers yes.

GP  – There's a website with an English version of the book. Do you know to whom this site belongs? 
SH answers no.

GP – Do you know the Oprah Winfrey TV program? 
SH answers no.

d) Santos Oliveira (GA lawyer) questions

SO – How many times a week did the McCanns come to your place? 
SH says about once a week. She adds she saw mainly Kate and that Kate cried when she was with her. 

SO – Was there a difference between the sorrow due to the disappearance and the sorrow due to the loss?

The judge reacts, the lawyer argues the feelings can be the same and the motives different. The judge agrees but warns that the question shouldn't imply the conclusion.

SO – Do you recall the interview they gave in October to the Expresso? 
SH doesn't.

SO – Do you know who Clarence Mitchell is? 
SH does.

SO – Do you know if they spoke about the possibility that their daughter had died ? 
SH says they did.

SO – Then why were they angry with the book? 
SH says they don't fear what the book says.

SO – Do you know if the book hampered the investigation? 
SH says she can't answer.

SO – Have you talked with the McCanns about the book? 
SH says yes, 3 months later.

SO – What did they say about the book? 
SH answers they were worried about what the people would think and, if they did nothing, the people would think the book was telling the  truth. They spoke of the effect on the search for Madeleine, the public attention diverted. They didn't want to waste energy on this issue. They spoke about the way to protect the twins from what was in the book.

SO – Did they feel indicted by the book? 
SH apparently doesn't understand.

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

MC – Did they feel ashamed, anxious? 
SH doesn't (doesn't want to?) answer.

MC – Did they feel offended? 
SH sighs then says they were surprised by the book.

MC – Did the documentary change something? 
SH says it increased the damage. She says that, after the book was published, some people turned their back on them. And some people wanted the tragedy to stop there.

To be continued...

EMMA LOACH

 Libel Trial > McCann v Gonçalo Amaral - Day 1, Witness No 2

The session was delayed because a journalist (TVI) was caught recording the session on her cell phone, the fear, according to the judge, being that it interferes with the Court's own recording. It seems that although the phone was "active" it wasn't recording. In any event, this incident had to be reported and dictating to the clerk which all takes time. All this appeared to be very much of an aside since many cell phones were on in the court room (switching ones phone off completely seems to equate to an amputation).

The testimony as it happened...

(12.09.2013, 3pm) Emma Loach is a documentary film maker and gives evidence in English. The interpreter translates the lawyers' questions for Ms Loach and then translates her responses from English to Portuguese for the lawyers and the judge who, in fact, do understand to the extent that they sometimes helped the interpreter, an English lady.

Emma Loach first met the McCanns in 2008 in order to make the first documentary (Madeleine, one year on), since then their professional relationship has expanded to that of friendship and to the extent that she sees the family including the twins on a regular basis.

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

ID – Reminding the objective is to establish the effects, if any, the book had on Kate and Gerald McCann, she asks what Emma Loach has to say about the subject.
EL answers that the book had a devastating effect on the McCanns, says it was like falling into a black bottomless hole, because the people thought Madeleine was dead. In July 2008, according to the Attorney General (AG) Report, there was no evidence that Madeleine was dead and the AG agreed she could be alive. This was the scenario which was accepted before the book was published.

ID – Why did the McCanns let this book undermine the findings of the AG report? There were elements in the file which clearly indicated that Madeleine could still be alive.
EL doesn't seem to have understood the question (translated in English by the interpreter), because she answers as if the question concerned the public and not the McCanns. She speaks of the style of the book – agreeable and easy to read – and the simplicity of the proposed answers.

A lawyer objects that the issue isn't to appreciate the literary qualities of the book. Overruled.

EL adds the fact that the author was the head of the investigation led the people to conclusions where there's no room for doubts. Only someone who knows very well the files is able to see the big failures of the book.
 
ID – The McCann couple didn't react immediately to the book, why?
EL explains their priority was looking for Madeleine, not to be concerned by the publication of this book. In the beginning they had no idea about its possible effects. But it became clear in the following months.
 
ID – Question missing, likely "To what is due the effect of the book?"
EL thinks that the "nice, easy conclusion" explains the success of the book. There were many interviews and articles about the book, it was a kind of media tsunami. This upset and harmed more and more the McCanns. The documentary that claimed their daughter was dead and that they concealed the body created a lot of pain. It spread rapidly on the internet, with subtitles, millions of people watched it.

ID – How do you know that millions of people watched it?
EL knows that two million watched it in the UK, but doesn't know how many outside of the UK. She says before the book and the documentary, Kate and Gerald lived calmly, many people in the world were ready to help them, they were strong and stoic, they didn't allow themselves anxiety because they had to find Madeleine. Then the book was published and they fell into despair because the people whose help they needed thought Madeleine was dead. It became very difficult to be strong enough to go on looking for Madeleine.

ID – Did they lose the energy they had to search for their daughter?
EL answers they lost the hope but couldn't desist.

ID – What was the first preoccupation for this couple?
EL says it was the fact people believed Madeleine was dead.

ID – And in relation to the twins (after the publication)?
EL says they worried a lot for the present day and also for the future. The twins were about to go to school and they could hear rumours. It was important that they understand that everything was done to find their sister (note: this is one of the main worries of Psychologist David Trickey, witness 4)

ID – In which documentaries did you participate?
EL corrects that she is actually the documentary maker. One was broadcast in May 2008, Madeleine McCann, one year on (ITV) and the other in May 2009, Madeleine was here (Ch4). In the first one she didn't use the word "abduction" and the McCanns, as arguidos, couldn't speak. The documentary is about the McCann European campaign.

ID – They were broadcast in how many countries in the EU?
EL doesn't know.

ID – Are they based on the McCann couple's thesis (the abduction)?
EL answers that in the second documentary an investigator (David Edgar, witness 3) says there are many theories but they investigate it on the basis that it was an abduction.

2) Defence lawyers.

a) TVI lawyers' questions.

TVI – Was the 2009 documentary a reconstruction?
EL says the main characters didn't take part. Those who did were the private investigators.

TVI – But it was presented as a reconstruction? Didn't the McCanns collaborate?
[Note: The Portuguese word was "reconstitution", and not "reconstruction". The difference is important: a reconstruction is a current practice in Common Law UK ; it's done in front of cameras with actors and the purpose is to jog people's memories. In the Romano Germanic System (Portugal, France, etc.), a "reconstitution" is only done by the police, with the real protagonists, without TV cameras and for internal use.]
EL says they were interviewed but weren't involved in the film making.

TVI – Did you know that TVI wanted also to broadcast the Ch4 documentary?
EL says she didn't know.

TVI – Do you know that the McCann couple participated in other programs?
EL says she knows.

TVI – Do you know they were in Oprah Winfrey Show?
EL says she knows.

TVI – Do you know that the Oprah shows audience is much more important?
EL says she doesn't know the numbers; they're not available on the web.

TVI – Do you know that Oprah productions are much more watched than any other?
EL admits they are but adds they have no future on the web.

TVI – What are the worries about the twins and what's done to protect them from the internet?
EL says the twins aren't allowed to surf on the Internet; there are no discussions about the book in front of them, though Madeleine issue is discussed a lot.

TVI – Have they seen your documentaries?
EL thinks they didn't.

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

VC – Who wanted to make the documentary?
EL says she suggested it to ITV, the idea was hers.

VC – What is the difference between the crime files and the book?
EL says the book is easier to read.

VC – Do you know the case well? Do you remember the failures?
EL says she did know the process but forgot about it, forgot the details.

VC – In what manner has the book changed the prevailing situation?
EL criticizes the method used to launch the book. It had no benefit in the search for Madeleine.

VC – Do you know the final Report?
EL says she does.

VC – Is there a difference...

The judge says that comparing is the job of the court.

EL doesn't remember a passage (of the final Report) in particular but considers the final Report disagrees with GA's thesis. She says the book wasn't written in the Report's language but as an account, the conclusion of which being totally different to that of the Report.

c) Guerra & Paz's lawyer's questions

GP – I understand that, from 2010, you and the McCanns met once every three months. Do you know when the book was published? Do you know how the McCanns had access to the book? Did they speak about it in general?
EL says they spoke of the conclusion in particular.

GP – Do you know if the book was published in the UK?
EL says she saw it in bookshops.

GP – And on the internet?
EL doesn't know. She ignored who introduced this book and if it was legal.

GP – About the effect, when did you speak to the McCanns about the book?
EL answers "in January"

GP – Did you see then that they were hurt?
EL answers yes.

GP – When the twins went to school, did they hear about Madeleine's disappearance? Do they speak of it at home? Do the parents fear the internet?
EL says they speak of Madeleine at home.

GP – Have the twins any idea that other theses circulate in the UK? Is their access restriction due to the book or to these other theses?
EL says that before the book was published nobody thought that Madeleine could have died in the apartment.

GP – How do you know about the audience of 2 millions? Have you a special access to these data?
EL answers no.

d) Santos Oliveira (GA lawyer) questions

SO – You said that three days after the AG report was published everything went down. What, the investigation? 
EL says no. She was referring to the McCanns.

SO – Did you refer to the book hampering the search for their daughter?
EL says yes, sometimes. She witnessed Kate incapable of doing anything. She knows the files extremely well; she studied them after they were specially translated for them.

SO – How do you know that the police weren't looking for Madeleine?
EL says she was present, having visited the McCanns two days after the publication of the book. 

SO – Do you know the date on which this action started? Do you know why they reacted so late?
EL says she never was involved in such discussion.

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

MC – How did the book hamper the investigation?
EL says that if everybody thought Madeleine had died then nobody would look for her. If people thought the parents were involved, they wouldn’t help. 

MC – But when the book was published the McCanns were no longer arguidos.
EL says the public, according to the US, is very important to find missing children. 

MC – If some people suspect, from where is their conviction formed?
EL says it is mainly through the internet. GA's book is the first thing that appears on internet. The people don't know these allegations aren't true according to the criminal investigation.

MC – People don't know?
EL hesitates, she says the majority don't. 

MC – Are the McCanns ashamed of what is said in the book?
EL answers yes.

MC – Why?
EL says the public believes they had covered up and then asked for money to search for Madeleine.

MC – The fact they are innocent didn't suppress this feeling? 
EL says the fact they are innocent necessitates they must find Madeleine. They were more ashamed to be arguidos than because of what the book says.

MC – In which way is it different?
EL doesn't answer, she is obviously upset. The judge says she may leave. Previous witness Mrs Susan Hubbard gets up immediately and follows Emma Loach out of the court room.

DAVID EDGAR

Libel trial > McCann v Gonçalo Amaral - Day 1, Witness No 3 

The testimony as it happened...

(12.09.2013, 5pm) David Edgar (Former RUC detective) hired by the McCanns as a private investigator from October 2008 to October 2011. Has only a professional relationship with the McCanns.

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

ID – After explaining the purpose of the trial, she asks what DE’s function was.
DE answers he tried to discover where Madeleine was.

ID – Have you previously worked with Portuguese people in the exercise of your functions?
DE says he did.

ID – Do you know the legal process in Portugal?
DE just knows the investigation was closed. He had contacts with Portuguese lawyers.

ID – Did the Polícia Judiciária (PJ) go on investigating after the case was filed?
DE says yes.

ID – Between 2008 and 2011, was much information relating to the case received by the PJ?
DE says yes, but not much information originated from Portugal. He thinks that Madeleine can be in Portugal and therefore the Portuguese information is important. But adds that the Portuguese public believed Madeleine was dead.

ID – You interviewed people. Did you feel the impact of that belief or not?
DE says it is difficult to say in terms of volume of information and of facts. He thinks there was less information being received by the time he got involved in October 2008.

ID – Did the interest of the public increase or decreased after the publication of the (Amaral) book?
DE says it's difficult to say. He says there was a lot of information when he started to work on this case.

2) Defence lawyers.

a) TVI lawyers’ questions.

TVI – The curiosity of the public in a case of a disappearance without a trace is normal. Does the anonymous and spontaneous information decrease with time?
DE says it depends on the investigators, each case is different. There's a decrease.

TVI – Does the interest of the newspapers and the public also diminishes?
DE doesn't know.

b) Guerra & Paz's lawyer's questions

GP – Did you have access to the criminal process?
DE answers that he read parts of the files in the translation that the McCanns asked to be done.

GP – How did you manage to conduct an investigation without analysing all the process? Whom did you contact in Portugal?
DE says he contacted an informant who passed information to both the UK and Portuguese authorities. He doesn't want to say to whom he spoke, but says he spoke to someone from the PJ.

GP – Do you know that the McCanns initiated a private investigation?
DE knows.

GP – Was there private investigators before you?
DE says yes but adds he was the first professional one.

Neither the Valentim de Carvalho lawyer nor Gonçalo Amaral lawyer had questions.

Continues....

DAVID TRICKEY

Libel trial McCann v Gonçalo Amaral - Day 2, Witness No 1

Testimony of the Psychologist

The testimony as it happened...

(13.09.2013, 10am) David Trickey. He is a psychologist. He was contracted by Madeleine's parents concerning the twins. He went to PDL to meet them, then had some conversations on the phone with the McCanns, but only two meetings (without the twins).

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

ID says the issue here is the effects, on the twins, of the Amaral book and the documentary.
In your professional opinion what do you have to say?
DT says he is a specialist in child trauma. He has worked with ten families in cases involving abduction. (note: unfortunately nobody asked what kind of abduction) He saw the twins some weeks after Madeleine disappeared. They were asking where she was. He helped to answer that question. He says it is fundamental for a child to believe the world is safe and secure. Thanks to their age, the twins were protected from the book.
He has two preoccupations: 
1) anything affecting the parents will have an impact on the children and 2) the twins will have increasing access to books, etc. He adds that it is easy to monitor young children but not teenagers. He is afraid that when the twins eventually read the Amaral book they will question their parents. This could have an enormous impact on them.
He is concerned that the twins will believe that the book hindered finding Madeleine, a belief that could lead to despair. In all the other cases he worked on, the children wanted to know if everything possible had been done.
He is also worried about the twins' friends having access to the Amaral book. Children cope better if they have social support and if their friends' families also support their parents. As far as questions are concerned, they can respond saying nobody knows what happened, but what if someone turns up saying that what happened to Madeleine is known? ...and refers to the book? Because it's a book, it has extra credibility (note : he likely meant "authority"). In such a situation therefore it would be very difficult for the twins to deny what the book states.

ID – What do the parents do in daily life?
DT says his concern is the children and most of his concern is the future.

ID – Are the parents anxious about keeping the twins away from the book etc.?
DT says there were occasions in which they had to control access to the internet.

ID – Why did you say the book had credibility?
DT says that it is much more difficult, especially for children, to dismiss a book written by a police officer who expresses his ideas.

ID – What are the effects on the children?
DT says there's a difference between the impact of a book and the impact of articles and news. He worries because the book doesn't suggest but concludes.

ID – What are the preoccupations concerning this family in particular?
DT says it's difficult to answer. The twins have done very well so far because their parents managed to protect them. He worries about the future however, when the twins become independent. Some impact is unavoidable. It is difficult to predict which one it will be. He thinks the book leaves a feeling that the world isn't secure and that the parents are somehow dangerous. If they find that the book damaged the search for Madeleine, they'll be angry or depressed.

2) Defence lawyers.

The TVI lawyer is a substitute, he has no questions.

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

VC – Have you had access to the book through the internet?
DT says yes.

VC – So you also had access to the comments about the book through the internet?
DT says yes.

VC – The investigation Report was spread in the media, translated into English and put on the internet. Does this worry you?
DT says that anything, any information that undermines the trust of the children worries him.

VC – Are you worried by the transcripts that are on the internet?
DT says he doesn't know what they are about and can't answer.

VC – What if the facts are similar to what the investigation Report states?
DT says the book is a clear statement that presents a unique conclusion.

VC – Is the death hypothesis the only thing that worries you?
DT says no. The issue is the involvement of the parents.

VC asks permission to read an extract from the book.
Os resultados a que chegámos foram os seguintes:
1. A menor Madeleine McCann morreu no apartamento 5A do Ocean Club, da Vila da Luz, na noite de 3 de Maio de 2007;
2. Ocorreu uma simulação de rapto;
3. Kate Healy e Gerald McCann são suspeitos de envolvimento na ocultação do cadáver da sua filha;
4. A morte poderá ter sobrevindo em resultado de um trágico acidente;
5. Existem indícios de negligência na guarda e segurança dos filhos.
Translates as >
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.
DT says the idea that the parents aren't able to keep the children safe is terrifying for the children. Then there's the issue of the parents simulating abduction. The problem is that it isn't a suggestion but a conclusion.

VC now asks for a reading of the Conclusion to the Investigation Report dated 10th September 2007 which is also on the internet.

Isabel Duarte objects to this reading, but the judge overrules, saying it's within the files that were released (Vol X, p. 2587-2602)

Por tudo o exposto resulta dos autos que :
A) A menor Madeleine McCann morreu no apartamento 5A do Ocean Club da Praia da Luz na noite do 03 de Maio de 2007.
B) Ocorreu uma simulação de rapto.
C) De forma a impossibilitar a morte da menor antes das 22h, foi inventada uma situação de vigilância das crianças do casal McCann enquanto dormiam.
D) Kate McCann e Gerald McCann estão envolvidos na ocultação do cadáver da sua filha Madeleine McCann.
E) Neste momente parece não existirem ainda fortes indícios de que a morte da menor não tenha ocorrido devido a um trágico acidente.
F) Do apurado até ao momento tudo indica que o casal McCann, como autodefesa, não queira fazer a entrega de forma imediata e voluntaria do cadáver, existindo uma forte probabilidade de o mesmo ter sido transladado do local inicial de deposição. Esta situação é susceptível de levantar questões quanto às circunstancias em que ocorreu a morte da menor. 
Translates as >
From all the elements that have been exposed, it results that:
A) The minor Madeleine McCann died in the apartment 5A of the Ocean Club resort, on the night of 3rd May 2007;
B) There was a simulation of abduction;
C) In order to make it appear impossible that the death of the minor occurred before 22.00hr, a system of checks on the McCann children while they slept was created;
D) Kate McCann and Gerald McCann are involved in the concealment of the cadaver of their child Madeleine McCann;
E) At this moment, there is no evidence that the death of the minor didn't happen due to a tragic accident;
F) From what has been established until now, everything indicates that the McCanns, by virtue of self preservation, don't want to deliver immediately and voluntarily the cadaver, even though there is a strong possibility that the same was transported from the initial place of deposition. This situation consequently raises questions about the circumstances under which the death of the minor occurred.
DT says his concern is that the book is more accessible and easier to read.

b) Guerra & Paz's lawyer's questions

GP confirms that DT saw the twins only once in PDL, some weeks after Madeleine's disappearance. – What about the memory of a 2-year-old child? Will the child remember?
DT answers that the twins' age then was just around the time when a child’s memory develops.

GP – What about the meetings with the McCanns?
DT says the first meeting (actually his second intervention) was requested as a support for the twins.

GP – Did the twins show preoccupation for having been left alone when sleeping?
DT says he's not aware of that.

The lawyer explains it was the reason why she had asked about memory.

GP – Concerning the security issue (since parents are expected to protect), is it possible that the fact they were left alone resulted in some trauma?
DT pauses, then says he has no evidence of this.

GP – Was your intervention only related to abduction?
DT says his job was to minimize the trauma and the impact of abduction.

GP – Was your intervention about abduction or disappearance?
DT says he spoke of disappearance: where is Madeleine? We don't know.

GP – At which age did the twins go to school?
DT doesn't know.

GP – Have you talked about the internet issue with the parents?
DT says he's aware that recently they had to forbid the twins to look for information on the web.

GP – In order to satisfy themselves that everything was done to find Madeleine, will they not try to look for information on the internet?
DT says his concern is that the book is so easy to access.

GP – Shouldn't we expect that sooner or later the twins will read what's on the internet?
DT says "possibly".

GP – At which age should the parents speak about the book?
DT says they'll have to do it before the twins discover by themselves. The parents know better than anyone else when they'll have to talk about it.

GP – With the explanations of the parents will the book cause trauma with the twins?
DT says it's very difficult to say. His job is to reduce that risk.

GP – What if they feel the parents are concealing the book?
DT pauses, then says it's difficult to find out the right time.

GP – Which option will cause the least damage to the twins. If they don't find the right time, isn't it more serious?
DT pauses, then says this is a difficult question.

GP – It's even common knowledge in the media that in missing children cases there's a big probability of abduction by a parent. What causes more psychological damage, not having the parents to help, access to the internet without the parents having talked before or access having spoken with the parents?
DT says knowledge reduces the risk, but doesn't suppress it.

c) Santos Oliveira (GA lawyer) questions

SO observes that DT's job is with the parents and that he hasn't seen the twins for a long time. Do the twins have no idea about what's in the book?
DT says he doesn't know. As they're young it's easy to protect them.

SO – So up until now they don't know about the book?
DT is not aware.

SO – Have they some idea that their parents were arguidos?
DT doesn't know. They (the McCanns and DT) never spoke about that.

SO – Do they know a book was banned and then authorized again?
DT doesn't know.

SO – Are your preoccupations projections?
DT says yes.

SO – With your experience will it be possible to reduce the effect (of the book)?
DT pauses, then says the impact is less between 20-30 years of age but from 8 to 18 years it increases.

SO starts to ask why the children were alone... but the judge overrules saying it is off topic.

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

MC – How old are the twins ?
DT says they're 8.

ANGUS McBRIDE

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

The testimony as it happened...

(13.09.2013, 11:30 am) Angus McBride. A lawyer, he first met the McCanns as an assistant advisor when they came back from Portugal at the beginning of September 2007.

The Judge, Maria Emília de Melo e Castro, asks him what kind of services he provided for the McCanns.
AM answers that he assisted the McCanns in the criminal investigation, was a go-between with their Portuguese lawyers and assisted them in their relationships with the media.

The Judge asks if his knowledge about the case is personal or through the media and if, in the first case, there are restrictions on what he can say, if there's a clause of confidentiality.
AM answers that he can't repeat what occurred when he worked with the McCanns, but can freely talk about the media.

The Judge reminds him that in Portugal the lawyers can't talk about specifics as long as a process is ongoing and that any information they acquired through their professional activity must remain confidential.
AM says that in the UK it's not like that.

The judge asks if there's anything that prevents him from talking
AM says he is registered as a lawyer in the UK and the only applicable secrecy law is related to this.

The judge asks if, in the perspective of the English law, he thinks something prevents him from speaking.
AM answers that nothing prevents it, unless it relates to his counselling activities. For instance his meetings with the media aren't under any secrecy law.

The judge concludes by asking AM to inform the court if he eventually can't answer any particular question, if it violates a professional confidentiality.  She adds that she only mentions this matter because she wants him to feel at ease and not pressurised to answer any of the questions.

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

ID – Did you advise the McCanns about the reaction to the book?
AM says no. He adds that he is a specialist in the criminal defence of victims and management of the media.

ID – Are you aware of the impact the publication of the (Amaral) book had in the UK?
AM says he is.

ID – Did the public treatment of the case (media, comments, etc.) increase or decrease following the publication of the book?
AM says it increased, the internet included.

ID – You were very attentive in the first months, what was the result?
AM says some distance is needed. The people were compassionate in the UK. The rumours generated media's errors. The comments on the internet revealed the damages caused by the status of arguido. The book appeared as the official version of the rumours. It provoked an explosion of comments on the internet. People thought that there had been some judicial decision and this had a negative effect on the search for Madeleine.

ID – Have you read the book in a translation on the internet?
AM doesn't answer this question (note: later he will say he read the book without specifying where) but says he heard about the documentary and read a transcript of the documentary. He adds he is not an expert in libel.

ID – In what other countries of the world did the book have an impact?
AM observes the impact was worse because of the profession of the author.

ID – Do you know the books of Paulo Cristóvão, Manuel Catarino and Hernâni Carvalho? (note: all of them wrote a book on the case)
AM doesn't know them.

2) Defence lawyers.

The TVI lawyer is a substitute. He has no questions

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

VC – Are you aware of the process?
AM says yes, but not officially.

VC – Is the information in the media different from that in the Amaral book?
AM says yes, but they are more vague, they weren't said in the same way.

VC – Did the book confirm the rumours?
AM says yes, mainly the internet ones. People understood that these rumours were coming from the PJ. The fact the book repeated them increased that impact. He adds it is the only book that makes these allegations.

c) Guerra & Paz's lawyer's questions

GP – Do you know that other authors spoke in the media?
AM says he is vaguely aware that other books exist. He knows that the case was an important one in Portugal and beyond.

GP – Can you mention specifics about the effect of the book in July 2008?
AM says he can't.

GP – When did you know that the book was on the internet?
AM doesn't know. He says he read the book some time after.

GP – Do you know other books by Gonçalo Amaral on this case?
AM says no.

GP – What were the repercussions in the media of the arguido status?
AM says it was very damaging in the beginning but, as there was not much information about, the media found it increasingly difficult to pursue the issue.

GP – Between September 2007 and July 2008, was there an impact on the media?
AM says yes.

d) Santos Oliveira (GA lawyer) questions

SO – I would like to know, in order to compare, about the impact following the disappearance, the arguido status and the book.
AM says he has no idea and doesn't have numbers.

The judge comments she wasn't expecting Mr McBride to pop up with numbers in his pocket.

SO – So when you say that the book had a growing impact, it's just your opinion?
AM says yes.

SO – Therefore the impact on the search is also an opinion?
AM says it is his judgement. He thinks that it's common sense.

SO – Do you know why they waited so much time before suing GA?

The judge overrules: it has nothing to do with the contemplated matter

SO – Do you know who the Amaral book site on the internet belongs to?

The judge again criticizes and overrules.

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

MC – what was the reaction to the shelving of the process?
AM says the impact was very quickly shadowed by the book.

MC – What did the people think of the shelving?
AM says that they respected the AG Report that says that there was no evidence of anything.

MC – But the conclusions of the AG Report are two-fold. It established there was no evidence determining the nature of the crime, whilst indicating that there nothing more that could be done to find Madeleine.
AM concludes saying that the publication of the book raised many comments.

End of Day 2.

(Tribunal failed to resume in the afternoon as the Judge didn’t return.)