Posted by Source: Correio da Manhã, 03.08.2008, paper edition. Translation by Astro
Investigation – What the PJ inspectors wanted to know
When she became an arguida, Kate stopped talking to the inspectors
September 7, 2007. Kate McCann entered the Polícia Judiciária in Portimão in the morning and the questioning extended into the evening. She was heard as a witness, but the tension in the air was evident. For the first time, people were concentrated at the PJ building’s door and murmured words of mistrust regarding the couple.
On that day, CM had reported that the dogs had detected cadaver odour on Maddie’s mother’s clothes. A piece of evidence that the authorities intended to use as a trump, during a questioning that only changed course on the next day, after the PJ failed to see their doubts clarified.
Kate began by replying all the questions, but when she was made an arguida, she stopped talking. She went silent, in the company of her lawyer, and accepted all the insinuations in a provocative manner. Less than 48 hours later, Kate and Gerry travel to England with the twins, leaving the investigation into the disappearance of their daughter, who meanwhile had become four, behind.
They later guaranteed that they would return if necessary – which they never did, although they were never formally requested to return – and they are no longer arguidos for the suspected involvement in concealing the child’s body. Today, CM reveals the 48 questions that Kate did not want to answer during the interrogation and which reflect the investigators’ doubts. More than a year after Maddie disappeared, many of these questions remain unanswered.
Jeers for the McCann couple
The day that Kate and Gerry went to the PJ’s offices in Portimão marked a turnaround in the relationship between the local people and the couple: the curious bystanders that spent the day on the street jeered at Maddie’s mother and father, mainly criticizing the “absence of visible suffering” from Kate. The foreign press also attended in great numbers.
The Judiciária’s 48 questions that Kate did not answer
- On the 3rd of May 2007, at around 10 p.m., when you entered the apartment, what did you see, what did you do, where did you search, what did you handle?
- Did you search in the couple’s bedroom’s closet? (said she would not reply)
- (Two photographs of her bedroom’s closet are exhibited) Can you describe its contents?
- Why are the curtains in front of the side window, behind the sofa (photograph is exhibited) ruffled? Did someone pass behind that sofa?
- How long did the search that you made in the apartment after detecting the disappearance of your daughter Madeleine take?
- Why did you say straight away that Madeleine had been abducted?
- Presuming that Madeleine had been abducted, why did you leave the twins alone at home while you went to the Tapas to raise the alarm? Even because the supposed abductor could still be inside the apartment.
- Why didn’t you ask the twins at that moment what had happened to their sister, or why didn’t you ask them at a later point in time?
- When you raised the alarm at the Tapas, what exactly did you say and what were the words?
- What happened after you raised the alarm at the Tapas?
- Why did you do to warn your friends instead of calling out from the balcony?
- Who contacted the authorities?
- Who participated in the searches?
- Did anyone outside of the group learn about Maddie’s disappearance during the following minutes?
- Did any neighbour offer you help after the disappearance?
- What does the expression “we let her down” mean?
- Did Jane mention to you that she had see a man with a child that night?
- How were the authorities contacted and which police force was called?
- During the searches, and already with the police present, in what locations was Maddie searched for, how and in what manner?
- Why didn’t the twins wake up during that search, or when they went to the upper floor?
- Who did you call after the facts?
- Did you call SKY News?
- Did you know about the danger of calling the media, because that could influence the abductor?
- Did you request the presence of a priest?
- How was Madeleine’s face publicized, with a photograph, or other media?
- Is it true that during the search you remained seated on Maddie’s bed without moving?
- How did you behave that evening?
- Did you manage to sleep?
- Before the trip to Portugal, did you comment on a bad feeling or a bad premonition?
- What was Madeleine’s behaviour?
- Did Maddie suffer of any disease or did she take any kind of medication?
- What was the relationship like between Madeleine and her siblings?
- What was the relationship like between Madeleine and her siblings, her friends and her colleagues at school?
- Concerning your professional life, in how many and in which hospitals have you worked?
- What is your medical specialty?
- Did you work by shifts, in emergency rooms or in other departments?
- Did you work on a daily basis?
- Did you stop working at a certain point in time? Why?
- Do your twin children have difficulty in falling asleep, are they unruly and does that upset you?
- Is it true that at certain times you were desperate over your children’s attitude and that left you were upset?
- Is it true that in England you considered the possibility of handing over Madeleine’s guardianship to a relative?
- In England, did you give your children medication? What type of medication?
- Within the process, you were shown films of cynotechnical inspection of forensic character, where the dogs can be seen marking indications of human cadaver odour and equally human blood traces, and only of human origin, as well as all the comments that were made by the responsible expert. After the visualization, and after cadaver odour was signaled in your bedroom next to the wardrobe and behind the sofa that was pushed against the living room window, you said that you could not explain anything apart from what you had already said?
- You said that you could not explain anything apart from what you had already said, concerning the marking of human blood behind the sofa by the detection dog
- You said that you could not explain anything apart from what you had already said, concerning the marking of cadaver odour in the boot of the vehicle that you rented a month after the disappearance?
- You said that you could not explain anything apart from what you had already said, concerning the marking of human blood in the boot of the vehicle?
- You said that you could not explain anything apart from what you had already said, upon being confronted with the result of the collection of Maddie’s DNA, which was analysed by a British lab, behind the sofa and inside the vehicle’s boot?
- Did you have any responsibility or intervention in the disappearance of your daughter?
The question that she answered
Are you aware of the fact that by not answering these questions you may compromise the investigation, which is trying to find out what happened to your daughter? She said “yes, if the investigation thinks so.”
Process becomes public tomorrow
From tomorrow onwards, the entire investigation into the disappearance of Madeleine will be made available to the arguidos, to the witnesses, to the lawyers and also to the journalists, because it is a case of manifest public interest.
The process, which was archived on the 21st of July, will also be available to the general public, a situation that will allow for an authentic scrutiny of the work that was developed by the Polícia Judiciária. This decision, which came as a surprise due to the fact that the case involves a child, was only announced at this point in time, after the Portuguese lawyers for the McCann family, Carlos Pinto de Abreu and Rogério Alves, requested the Portimão Court for priority in the access to the process.
Last Wednesday, the Court had requested the interested parties that had already asked for the consultation of the process to leave a CD at the secretary’s office, given the fact that the process will be supplied in a digital format.
The archiving of the investigation into the little girl’s disappearance, which happened on the 3rd of May 2007, in the Algarve, precipitated the lifting of the judicial secrecy, which had been extended precisely until the month of August.
March 7th, 2013 at 4:11 am
Anyone know where this has gone?
A VERDADE DA MENTIRA: THE TRUTH ABOUT THE LIE
READ IN ENGLISH THE COMPLETE WORK A VERDADE DA MENTIRA BY DR GONCALO AMARAL
I had the sense to copy it into word so have the complete version in English in one document. It was FREE.
March 7th, 2013 at 7:53 am
Thanks. Chris, for reminding that the book is available free online. I’d come across that before some time ago, was surprised as I’d expected I’d need to be paying when ordering, and then forgot to return to it. Now I can continue reading it.
Wherever your link was – maybe where G. Amaral published the book online – it’s available here anyway. It may be available in a number of places in The Web, this was the top Google search result I found:
http://goncaloamaraltruthofthelie.blogspot.co.uk/
March 7th, 2013 at 8:21 am
Hi Gi
If you follow your link where is the English free version? It’s not showing for me anymore. You can buy a Portuguese or German copy. Looks to me it’s been ‘got at’.
As I say I have the full version in MS word.
March 7th, 2013 at 8:30 am
Went in under Firefox and the book is there on the front page – ta
March 17th, 2013 at 6:21 am
Look Its quite normal for British parents to give their children sleeping drugs and go out to dinner out of sight and earshot. It is also quite normal for British parents to protect themselves by hiring a high profile legal team. British rights are paramount when questioned by any investigative authority so questions do not have to be answered., Finally its quite normal to have an official investigation closed down in favor of a private one that produces the answer that the parents want to see.
Another well known fact is that he British cadaver scent dogs are notoriously unreliable only indicating when their handler tells them to. The phrase “we’ve let her down” is in common use in British families where a child goes missing. The only possible reason for a previously highly respected police officer to write a book of lies is to make money. So please will the great American people try to understand British customs and culture, all examples found in Kate McCanns book Madeline.
March 20th, 2013 at 6:13 am
“Look Its quite normal for British parents to give their children sleeping drugs and go out to dinner out of sight and earshot.” (Taytocrisp)
That might seem rather “normal” to you, but it seems that what you are saying is not legal if the children in question are the ages the three McCann children were in Spring 2007.
I’m not saying that the McCanns’ behaviour itself is illegal – I might be sent to prison for suggesting that now. But anyone who is not checking every 15, 20, or 30 minutes or more often and genuinely & reasonably thinks they are in good site of the childrens’ position and that it is also a secure place, is very likely indeed to be breaking the law.
Just going “out to dinner”? Like that? “Normal”? With children not much older than babies?
Oh dear. You’re not in the real world. The only exception would be dinner in a neighbours’ house, with working baby monitor equipment, and / or frequent checks.
The British social services seem to have accepted that the McCanns differentiated their position from what Taytocrisp seems to think is a “quite normal”, and illegal position: because of the couple’s claimed belief in their view of the holiday flat and the whole team’s alleged regular checkups.
There are 2 things to note:
1. As I’ve said without those things, and without missing a single checkup on time, the McCanns would have been breaking British laws. Anyone doing what you’re suggesting, Taytocrips, without the checks every 20 to 30 minutes or less would be acting unacceptably in law, and even then, it is not possible to make a statement saying that making such checks when leaving the property (and leaving it open) would guarantee legally acceptable behaviour. Not at all.
2. We didn’t really know in 2007 if the McCanns’ activities were legal or not. The social services merely decided not to press with a charge against them. Without a court decision, it was only possible to guess at if the McCanns acted legally or not. Many, many people think they did not.
3. There are clearly things worrying about the McCanns’ reputed acts in respect of child responsibility. The most striking of these is that they seem to have left both doors open on a street corner, easy ground access unit. The glass, sliding doors – completely unlocked and maybe not even fully closed. And they seem to have stated that the front door was left open also.
This is NOT leaving children just older than babies securely. How can you make the mistake that it was?
They can NOT have been watching the glass doors all of the time, and in fact the view was quite remote, despite their “back yard dining” claims, and hampered by vegetation, later cleared.
It is a very natural thing to suggest that it seems likely that, despite the social services not making a charge, their reputed child reponsibility acts easily may have fallen short of legal requirements. Consider the child minding options open to them (which they claimed was one major reason they chose the resort in the first place – apparently). Consider that the couple’s companions were using child monitoring equipment, and so the couple were made aware of the importance of this kind of thing, but they chose not to, leaving the very young children a couple of yards from a street, with large glass doors. THEY DIDN’T EVEN LOCK THE DOORS AFTER SOME TIME, THEY CLAIM – if you believe them. (We don’t know what this means, if they even had to claim that because of lack of other options. Their story changed. We don’t know.)
Taytocrisp, if your statment about the McCanns’ reputed child minding acts was made to suggest they did nothing abnormal (but you seem to think illegal can be normal, generally) and that Tony Bennet had no grounds to challenge it, you are wrong. There are very good grounds to suggest that the McCanns easily may not have acted legally. That the Social Services did not take action can just suggest sympathy for a mistake in circumstances where, whatever happened, their daughted has gone from them. It is any person’s right to petition to have such a question examined in a court, as Tony Bennet has done.
—
” It is also quite normal for British parents to protect themselves by hiring a high profile legal team. ” (Taytocrisp)
Normal for anyone to hire a respected legal team in a certain field. Innocent people set upon wrongly, train robbers, murderers, satanic ring members, etc. etc. It means nothing in itself.
I don’t think it is quite normal for British parents to hire “high profile” legal teams – for example THE most expensive legal teams in their fields in the whole of the UK. It’s something at least a bit unusual – a fact – perhaps nothing that means anything in itself, perhaps something that does. But it is at least a bit unusual. Why pretend something unusual is totally normal?
—
“The only possible reason for a previously highly respected police officer to write a book of lies is to make money. ” (Taytocrisp)
Taytocrisp, you’ve decided to post that bit of nonsense directly after a bit of discussion which points out that Mr Amaral had published online his book for anyone to read for free. I’ve heard him say he’d rather anyone could access it, rather it be read, than the preventitive effect of ordering by post and paying online.
You think Mr. Amaral was waiting to pounce upon some unsuspecting couple to earn money off them? His book only reports his professional findings and opinions continued as from when he was the man in charge of the police investigation. He’d have to have been cowering, ready to ambush unsuspecting British couples in advance, ready to get sacked, ready to lose his job with the plan to publish a book in a get rich quick scheme, according to your belief.
March 20th, 2013 at 6:24 am
… It’s hard not to wonder if you’re being sarcastic in your comment, Taytocrisp, and making fun of the notions you state, in the context of the McCanns and the missing little girl.
Where’s the evidence for the “notorious” cadaver scent dog errors, indicating upon command?
Just how regular is it for parents of missing British children to say “We let him / her down”? Yes, I’ve heard it before, once or twice in the last couple of decades, no more. It’s quite weird to point out that there can be a kind of “marked” or “standard” thing to say. Perhpas it’s significant.
March 20th, 2013 at 9:08 am
Gi
I think you totally misunderstand ‘Spud’. It a clever view of exactly what has gone on.
I would like to add to his comments that it is typically British to get the publicity seeking Government to exonerate you, particularly of neglect, and then spend £10m of the taxpayers money susposedly investigating the case without properly investigating the prime suspects.
March 20th, 2013 at 5:19 pm
Imagine the scene. Child accidentally dies, and there will be drugs found in the bloodstream, as in the bloodstream of the other twins. Father sits upset wife down. Yes, it’s sad to lose child, but if we tell the truth about this, we lose the other two children, we lose our two jobs, and we lose our home. We lose everything. We will only triple the pain on everyone. Father thinks up Plan B (he’s a cold customer, and being a doctor is used to death). Mum doesn’t think she can hack it, but goes along with it, because he says it’ll be alright. The friends go along with the story, because some of them have used the same drugs on their kids, and they don’t want to lose their jobs or kids either. Our only hope is that when the twins grow up, that Mum will split up with hardman Dad, and tell all to the papers. Why do you think she asked the Pope to bless the bible a short time after her child died? A committed Catholic, it was the only thing that touched the body and was as close as a priest’s blessing as she could get. Do you know what summed it up for me – what Mother, grieving for your lost child, would go jogging “to clear my head” with hubbie with matching hair woggle and Tshirt (that was the absolute clincher), when your child is likely to be being savaged by some killer somewhere….. I hope she owns up sometime, but Dad definitely won’t.
March 21st, 2013 at 4:29 am
No, I don’t really understand, Chris.
Unless you were letting me know’Spud’ was being sarcastic – which he may well have been – I can’t agree with ‘Spud’. obviously. Because those who speak loudly to try to “defend” the McCanns generally are much more subtle that he is being, rather than blaringly obvious about a few things which DO suggest a few basic elements of abnormality in the affair.
But, as there have been prominent McCann supporters, it’s not evident to conclude Taytocrisp is either being sarcastic and showing up strange elements. Or, somehow, genuinely suggesting the McCanns are typical and normal with those words.
I don’t think it’s really nice or helpful to bring everyone down as well – a typically ‘British’ thing. It’s normal for every country to have particular elements in society – the world is just like that. Yes, in the UK certain elements often seem kind of louder and more staunchly kind of proud and “in your face” and shameless about it – you might say “very hard” (“or very hard indeed”). In the UK it can seem these elements have thought of everything to confuse and stun and fob you off before anyone with any humanity could ever have got there (while you find this elsewhere, too). But there can be few differences between this country and others when it comes to certain elements of society.
Also – the kind of thing you mention, Chris, is what anyone would be doing in the circumstances – guilty of something or not guilty. Those are the natural routes, routes which anyone would go down, again, guilty of something or not guilty. That is, apart from the abnormal elements – the highest charging solicitors in that area in the country with some of the highest charging lawyers in Europe; instantly when their daughter disappears focussing on lawyers concerned with extradition etc.
March 21st, 2013 at 4:40 am
209 – ‘Mum’
I don’t want to force my view upon you or others, but I think it’s a good idea for me to suggest you have a rethink about the ‘accidental’ death involving drugs alone view. It seems not really feasible at all, for one thing judging by how the couple have acted since the disappearance. I’ve written a lot about this – very long coments before in the comments to this article (also ‘The Truth of the Lie’ and others).
If you can cope with such long comments, have a read. Because I really feel the accidental death scenario that unfortunately Mr. Amaral went with is a real red herring (and perhaps only because of lack of evidence making conviction of the couple for other involvement too unlikely). While, it can seem that it is maybe not as likely that it’s an accident that it hangs about so much. (People often have blind, over-sympathetic emotions to situations they have no involvement in.)
Discrepancies in early statements were made which, it is known, can have helped the accidental death scenario come about. I think, yes, this is how it arose – pretty early, in the media and in many people who suspected the McCanns of involvement. Many people suspected them, and certain early elements in the investigation and strange acts by the McCanns meant that many of those people put their suspicions down to accidental death. Whatever happened to the little girl, Madeleine McCann, everything says to me that accident is by far the most unlikely situation and quite an outlandish one, considering everything.
March 21st, 2013 at 5:58 am
Hi Gi
Spud I read as being Tongue in Cheek. He claims to be American (I think). So a question for him what would America do to the McCanns?
As for Mum, I am not sure why you are so convinced it was not an accident followed by a cover up.
I’m sure Spud would say ‘ask the dogs’. Now that is tongue in cheek from me.
March 21st, 2013 at 6:36 am
I’ll never forget the tone of voice those very words were “spoken” in (more shouted, agressively crowed or barked, actually might be a more appropriate term for the holder of these ears), by Gerry McCann himself, “Ask the dogs, Sandra.”
—
Chris, if the “not an accident” part is meant for me, I’ve written SO much here about that. If you’ve read a lot of the comments of the last 6 months or so in the more popular articles on this site, you can’t have missed it. Have a look, if you have.
March 23rd, 2013 at 6:00 am
Hi Gi
ok re ‘not an accident’. Which of your posts – they are all numbered – best explains your theory?
March 25th, 2013 at 9:03 am
Hi Chris.
Hmmm! I don’t know.
I think I’ve read that you’ve at least skimmed through the many paragraphs I wrote about that before. I see I linked for you before, but it was, is (and will be) a lot to read!!! Yes, I know. It’s a bit more intense and maybe emotionally written than I’d prefer. It came just when I was seeing strongly how unlikely the strangely hovering ‘accident’ scenario actually is, how it doesn’t seem to be able to placed with everything else, how it is so out of place, if you take time to think.
If you mean I should link to this for other people, you’re right (thanks). Because I couldn’t keep on repeating this. And no-one needs to repeat anything here. I can repeat a simple link for people who want to consider my theory – that the supposed death of the little girl could not have been an accident by her parents.
I really went on about this, because I feel the accident theories amount to kind of like a veil that has settled, found its way somehow to covering over normal, accurate and sensible thinking here.
Many people seem to be convered by it, and I felt it too before I really started thinking about things. It’s natural – you think ‘I don’t know’, and the kind of child abuse or sect worship / torture thing is so divorced from most peoples’ lives and so terribly hard for people to deal with, even just to place in your mind for a brief moment. When you connect this possibility with what would seem then very, very brazen people indeed on the screen, in newspapers, it can be natural that the ‘accident veil’ remains strong. The more disgusting theories are, yes, very hard to take.
My thoughts are at:
“The Facts v The Fiction” – posts 98 to 102
I know it’s so much to read, so probably the first post is the best place to read. (I think, I may change this. For now, it’s good. I think I’ve also written more in comments for another article in this site, but I can’t find them at the moment.)
http://truthformadeleine.com/?p=2242&cp=2#comment-47398
April 3rd, 2013 at 7:35 pm
…
… I want to be clear, my thoughts that the accidental death covered up scenario is too unlikely is unconnected to any further theories. This theory doesn’t suggest any guilt by, or that there was no guilt by, Gerry & Kate McCann in itself, or what anyone was or wasn’t involved in. Or could be or couldn’t be involved in. It just says – it seems too unlikely that there was an honest accident, even an accident involving some negligence, covered up. It’s important to get that clear. It doesn’t in itself suggest anything else, just that there was no honest accident. It does not consider who was responsible for the disappearance of Madeleine McCann, how it happened, or reasons why.
—
I think I may have said everything I could about the case of the disappeared young girl from England in Portugal.
Maybe I’ll post again though, I don’t know.
Just a last note – latest news reports that the British investigation is looking for 6 to 8 British cleaners associated with a white van in Praia da Luz during the time of the disappearance. The news articles report it’s thought they were cleaners for the Ocean Club itself, but haven’t been tracked down or identified, and would become suspects if they couldn’t be found.
I found this a bit surprising. Nearly 6 years later, the people reported 6 years ago by some people as British workers seen in a white van (as I’d read in newspapers back then), thought to work for the hotel itself, haven’t been identified by either investigation. (The articles seem to say this is leaked rather than official investigation information). The situation can seem like something strange, like a cursed kind of enterprise.
One article:
http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2013/03/21/madeleine-mccann-case-police-hunt-for-troupe-of-british-cleaners.html
May 17th, 2013 at 10:14 am
From the papers today:-
Scotland Yard has identified several people who may be “of interest” in the case of Madeleine McCann, who was abducted in Portugal in 2007.
Investigators conducting a review have drawn up a list of people who could be properly explored if the Portuguese authorities re-opened the case.
Detective chief superintendent Hamish Campbell, head of Scotland Yard’s homicide and serious crime command, said there were a “good number” of individuals who should be questioned.
So £5m/£6m down the drain and where are we? The Portuguese are not interested no wonder – they know who did it.
May 20th, 2013 at 8:49 am
I knew from the very beginning that this would be a whitewash, the ‘good number’ of inviduals who should have been questioned are the McCanns themselves, and their strange companions. When The Met. didn’t START by questioning them seperately, I knew it wasn’t going anywhere. I am certain the McCanns wanted an out and the situation now will be ‘Well The Met have proved us innocent’ As you say Chris £5/£6m down the drain and nothing. I am heartened by the fact that Yahoo are allowing anti McCann comments on their news pages, and to see that the anti-McCann comments are scoring far more ticks than the sentimental ‘Don’t you think they’ve suffered enough’ brigade So Gerry and Kate, far from being a few evil, dangerous people on the internet (Kate’s words) there are obviously more of us than you think, or want to admit to. I fervently hope that justice will prevail and these awful people will get their just rewards. Meanwhile I’ll just keep popping in.
May 24th, 2013 at 5:12 pm
A follow up to my comments, numbers 186-189 (on the previous page of comments to this article, p4).
Those comments are about the court decision against Tony Bennett earlier in 2013.
The judge in the recent Tony Bennett trial, who declared Mr Bennett guilty of contempt of court for breaching an order about what may not be said about the McCann couple, was Judge Tugendhat.
Tugendhat has very recently concluded in the Sally Bercow libel affair that Ms Bercow was guilty of defamation against Colin McAlpine for publishing (in Twitter), “Why is Lord McAlpine trending. *innocent face*.” This “tweet” came just after the BBC’s program accusing a man who had been a senior Conservative politician in a sexual abuse situation, but not naming McAlpine.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-22652083
Again, I find Tugendhat’s reasoning completely bewildering. Earlier in my life, I have learned at a law college in England and therefore studied the law of defamation and general civil law liabilities and duties. I just cannot see at all how Tugendhat can make guilt from those few words of Ms Bercow.
Tugendhat makes huge leaps of personal assumptions (and new definitions of legal and actual, social meaning) that I would or could never, ever make myself. These are very strange assumptions which I think the ordinary person could never make, and I’d imagined the law could never, ever make. I find it very frightening.
Re. “Why is Lord McAlpine trending. *innocent face*.”
To quote the BBC:
“After publishing her comment about Lord McAlpine, Mrs Bercow apologised in four subsequent tweets but denied that her original tweet had been defamatory.
Mr Justice Tugendhat dismissed Mrs Bercow’s argument that the question she had posed was entirely neutral.
Her inclusion of the words “innocent face” revealed that the question was “ironical”, the judge ruled.
The tweet therefore amounted to an accusation that the Conservative peer was a “paedophile who was guilty of sexually abusing boys living in care”. ”
That is wild.
The BBC interpret “Justice Tugendhat’s reasoning” (BBC’s words):
“[Ms. Bercow's] inclusion of the phrase *innocent face* told readers that she was being “insincere and ironical”, not asking a straightforward question as she had argued.
It was therefore reasonable to infer that she meant Lord McAlpine was “trending because he fits the description of the unnamed abuser”.
The tweet was therefore, by implication, a repetition of the accusations of sexual abuse broadcast on Newsnight.
Due to “repetition rule” in law, Mrs Bercow is treated as if she had made the original allegations herself, but with the addition of Lord McAlpine’s name.
The tweet therefore amounted to an accusation that the Conservative peer was a “paedophile who was guilty of sexually abusing boys living in care”. ”
…
It’s wild.
Tudendhat is able to lay down that the words “innocent face” meant by the very fact of their use, the very opposite of what “innocent face” honestly denotes, and hence that someone can be convicted on this basis.
Very, very Kafka indeed. It’s really, really scary.
…
“Mrs Bercow said she had learned her lesson “the hard way”, adding that the ruling should be seen as “a warning to all social media users” because comments could sometimes be “held to be seriously defamatory, even when you do not intend them to be defamatory and do not make any express accusation”.
…
Again, Tudgendhat is the man responsible for the case with the verdict against Tony Bennett, a case which I could not understand in comprehensible legal terms either. That verdict appeared to me to issue new laws as regard what a UK citizen can and can’t say or write to other people.
May 24th, 2013 at 5:19 pm
[ ... Sorry. I see I'd mistakenly written Colin McAlpine in the last comment. The man who sued Ms. Bercow is Alistair McAlpine.]