Court acquits Gonçalo Amaral and points out that the couple was constituted as arguidos (suspects) with a "well-founded suspicion" of having committed a crime.
Kate and Gerry McCann are demolished in the judgement of the Supreme Court in which the former coordinator of the PJ is acquitted of paying half a million euros to the parents of the girl who disappeared in May 2007 in the Algarve. At stake is the book 'Maddie: The Truth of the Lie', in which Amaral argues that the girl died in an accident and that the body was concealed by the parents, who simulated an abduction.
The McCanns felt aggrieved by the book and sued the author. The Judge-Counsellors replied: "The defendant [Gonçalo Amaral] expressed his opinion in the light of the evidence and indications gathered in the investigation opened in virtue of the disappearance of Madeleine McCann on May 3, 2007 (...) Incidentally, the claimants (appellants, applicants) were constituted as arguidos in a criminal investigation, which implies that there was a well-founded suspicion of having committed crimes or crimes."
Kate and Gerry understand that the book is an attack on their honour and that the content results from the breach of professional secrecy by Gonçalo Amaral.
The Judge-Counsellors continue: "It is true that the criminal investigation was eventually archived, in virtue of none of the evidence that led to the constitution of the claimants as arguidos was confirmed. Nonetheless, even in the archiving dispatch serious reservations are made about the verisimilitude (reality of) of the allegation that Madeleine had been abducted."
As to the presumption of innocence invoked by the parents, they (Judges) consider that one should not say "that the claimants were acquitted through the order of archiving the criminal proceedings (investigation). The archiving was determined because it was not possible to obtain sufficient evidence of the practice of crimes. It does not seem reasonable to consider that said archiving dispatch, based on insufficient evidence, should be equated as substantiation (proof) of exoneration".
in Correio da Manhã, February 8, 2017
Joana Morais
No comments:
Post a Comment