for the full original text, please click here
Common Action nr. 1454/09.5TVLSB
Common Action nr. 1454/09.5TVLSB-B
In the appended declarative actions, under the common form of process (originally, under the ordinary form of process), that KATE MARIE HEALY MACCANN, GERALD PATRICK MACCANN, MADELEINE BETH MACCANN, SEAN MICHAEL MACCANN AND AMELIE EVE MACCANN move against GONÇALO DE SOUSA AMARAL (action nr. 1454/09.5TVLSB) and against GONÇALO DE SOUSA AMARAL, GUERRA E PAZ, EDITORES, S.A., V.C. – VALENTIM DE CARVALHO – FILMES, AUDIOVISUAIS, S.A. AND TVI – TELEVISÃO INDEPENDENTE, S.A. (action 1454/09.5TVLSB-B), the decision of facts is as follows, based on the instructor basis/themes of evidence of the causes:
Article 1 – Proven.
Article 2 – Proven that the cover price of the book “Maddie A Verdade da Mentira” in Portugal was set by defendant Guerra e Paz Editores, S.A. at 13,33 euro (thirteen euro and thirty three cents), VAT included.
Articles 3 and 4 – Proven that defendant Gonçalo Amaral received from sales of the book “Maddie A Verdade da Mentira”, during the years of 2008 and 2009, the amount of 342.111.86 euro (three hundred and forty two thousand one hundred and eleven euro and eighty six cents).
Article 5 – Not proven.
Article 6 – Proven that the DVD was sold by Presselivre, Imprensa Livre, S.A., jointly with the newspaper that it owned – “Correio da Manhã” – for a price of 6,95 euro (six euro and ninety five cents), VAT included.
Article 7 – Proven that defendant Gonçalo received from DVD sales, in the year of 2008, the amount of 40.000 euro (forty thousand euro).
Article 8 – Proven that the DVD mentioned under item AN) was edited and the edited copies were sold by Valentim de Carvalho Multimédia, S.A. under an agreement with Presselivre, Imprensa Livre, S.A.
Article 9 – Not proven.
Article 10 – Proven.
Article 11 – Not proven.
Article 12 – Not proven.
Article 13 – Proven that as a consequence of the statements by defendant Gonçalo Amaral in the book, in the documentary and in the interview to Correio da Manhã, authors Kate MacCann and Gerald MacCann felt anger, despair, anguish, preoccupation, having suffered insomnia and a lack of appetite.
Article 14 – Proven that the same authors felt ill being for being considered, by people who believe in Gonçalo Amaral’s thesis about the disappearance of Madeleine MacCann, responsible for hiding her body and for simulating her abduction.
Article 15 – Proven that authors Kate MacCann and Gerald MacCann feel, with great preoccupation, the need of keeping their younger children away from knowledge about the aforementioned thesis.
Article 16 – Not proven.
Article 17 – Proven that Sean and Amelie started school in August of 2010 and do not yet possess knowledge of defendant Gonçalo Amaral’s aforementioned thesis.
Article 18 – Proven.
Article 19 – Proven that defendant Gonçalo Amaral entered his retirement from the Polícia Judiciária on the 1st of July of 2008.
Article 20 – Proven that on the 21st of July of 2008 the Procuradoria Geral da República [Attorney General’s office] released a “Nota para a Comunicação Social” [“Note for the Media”] announcing that the archiving of the inquiry referred under item E) of the given facts had been decided and informing that this inquest could be reopened, by initiative from the Public Ministry or under request from an interested party, if new evidence appeared that would originate serious, pertinent and consequent diligences.
Article 21 – Not proven.
Article 22 – Not proven.
Article 23 – Proven that the sale of the book was made partly on consignment and partly on firm account with a right to devolution, being subject to devolution for various motives, namely manufacturing defects, handling or non-transaction.
Article 24 – Proven.
Article 25 – Proven.
Articles 27 and 28 – Proven that the facts relating to the criminal investigation into the disappearance of Madeleine McCann which Gonçalo Amaral refers to in the book, in the interview to newspaper “Correio da Manhã” and in the documentary are, in its majority, facts that occurred and are documented in that investigation.
Article 29 – Proven that following a social deliberation on the 27th of October of 2008 a capital raise of defendant VC – Valentim de Carvalho – Filmes, Audiovisuais, S.A. took place, which was registered on the 28th of September of 2009, therefore the firm’s capital was henceforth held, in a proportion of 60% by “Estúdios Valentim de Carvalho – Gravações e Audiovisuais, S.A” and in the proportion of 40% by the Fundo de Investimento para o Cinema e Audiovisual.
Article 30 – Proven that defendant VC – Valentim de Carvalho – Filmes, Audiovisuais, S.A agreed with Valentim de Carvalho, Multimédia, S.A on June 6, 2008, to cede the latter the rights to sell, distribute, exhibit and braodcast a set of cinematographic and audiovisual works (movies, mini-series and documentaries) that it proposed to produce within a period of 5 years.
Article 31 – Proven.
Article 32 – Proven.
Article 33 – Proven.
Article 34 – Proven.
Article 35 – Proven only that the documentary’s DVD was distributed for sale jointly with the distribution for sale of newspaper “Correio da Manhã”.
Article 36 – Proven.
Article 37 – Proven.
The abovementioned affirmative and restrictive answers result from the critical and conjugated analysis of all the documental evidence, the viewing of registries of image and sound (especially the viewing in audience of the DVD “Maddie A Verdade da Mentira”), witnesses and the statements by the parties that were produced; the evidential elements that will be particularly indicated further ahead have been valued, in their replies’ order.
Among general considerations, it is important to enumerate the documents that have been appended to the processes (the main cases and the injunction) which assumed higher relevance for the formation of the conviction, which are:
a) An extract of the original of newspaper “Correio da Manhã” dated July 24, 2008 that includes the interview by defendant Gonçalo Amaral – pages 93 to 98 of the injunction.
b) A copy of newspaper “Público” dated April 15, 2009, mentioning the number of viewers that saw the broadcast of the documentary – page 130 of the injunction.
c) An extract of the publication “Notícias TV” with the shares of the same documentary – page 132 of the injunction.
d) A copy of the dispatch that closed inquiry nr 201/07.0GALGS, pages 144 to 173 of the injunction.
e) Advertising of the book launch on the 24th of July – page 371 of the injunction.
f) Contract “Opção de Direitos Deal Memo” between Gonçalo Amaral and defendant VC – Filmes dated March 7, 2008 – pages 422 and 423 of the injunction.
g) “Contrato Geral de Distribuição” between VC Filmes and Valentim de Carvalho Multimédia dated June 6, 2008 and “Adenda para Obras Televisivas” dated February 28, 2009 – pages 916 to 924 of the injunction.
h) “Contrato de Distribuição de Videogramas” between Valentim de Carvalho Multimédia, S.A and Presselivre, Imprensa Livre, S.A., dated March 31, 2009 – pages 1047 to 1053 of the injunction.
i) “Contrato de Cedência de Direitos de Autor” between Guerra e Paz and Gonçalo Amaral, dated March 10, 2008 – pages 277 to 281 of the main process.
j) Copy of the “Nota para a Comunicação Social” from the Attorney General’s Office dated July 21, 2008 – page 536 of the main.
k) Information dated January 18, 2012, from the Polícia Judiciária, stating that up to that date no request had been received from authors Kate and Gerald MacCann requesting the reopening of the investigation – page 1037 of the main.
l) Information from “Marktest Audimetria, S.A” concerning television audiences for the broadcast of the documentary – page 1045 of the main.
m) Information from the Polícia Judiciária concerning the date of retirement of defendant Gonçalo Amaral (July 1st of 2008) – page 1046 of the main.
n) Information from Presselivre, S.A concerning the DVD’s selling price (6,95 euro including VAT) – page 1047 of the main.
o) Copies of receipts emitted by defendant Gonçalo Amaral to defendant Guerra e Paz, summing up 307.900,69 euro – pages 1054 to 1056 of the main.
p) Copies of receipts emitted by the same defendant to Valentim de Carvalho Filmes summing up 36.000,00 euro – pages 1085 to 1087 of the main.
q) Information from the Polícia Judiciária dated January 13, 2012 about the treatment given to material with an investigative potential after the investigation was closed – page 1116 of the main.
r) Information from the Polícia Judiciária dated May 30, 2012 regarding the same matter – pages 1292 to 1294 of the main.
s) Information from defendant “Guerra e Paz” concerning the book’s cover price – page 1368 of the main.
t) Record number 3 from the board meeting of defendant VC Filmes and the certificate of registration of that firm – pages 1819 to 1840 of the main.
u) Receipts emitted by Valentim de Carvalho Multimédia to Presselivre, S.A – pages 1841 and 1842 of the main.
v) A statement from VASP concerning the sending for destruction of 63.369 copies of the DVD – page 1843 of the main. w) Information from the Tax Authority concerning income declared by defendant Gonçalo Amaral during the years of 2008 and 2009 – page 1095 of the main.
x) A copy of the book “Maddie A Verdade da Mentira” appended to the process. y) A copy of the DVD carrying the same name, equally appended to the process, which was viewed in court session.
z) A digital copy of the investigation as handed over to the Media.
Further within general considerations, it is also important to perform a summary and critical analysis of the main witness statements, given by:
(i) Susan Lorraine Hubbard – Married to an Anglican Pastor who practised in the Algarve, she arrived in Portugal three days after the child’s disappearance. She became friends with authors Kate and Gerald MacCann. She stated that they are very strong persons, “they are doctors”, referring that “many people turned their backs on them” after the publication of the book and especially after the broadcast of the documentary. She said she witnessed that type of scene. She stated that the idea that everyone thought that the child was dead was devastating for them, that they were angered and sad, fearing that people would believe that Madeleine is dead and justice is not done. When questioned, she stated that the authors were not exactly offended by the book, but surprised about the fact of its publication in the manner that it took place.
(ii) Emma Loach – she worked for the MacCann couple as a freelance producer in the documentary that was produced by them one year after the disappearance. She became friends with them. She described them as “strong and stoic” and corroborated that Kate and Gerald MacCann’s main concern was that people would think Madeleine was dead, as this would mean that they would stop looking for her. She stated a fact that is contradicted by the investigation – that before the book the theory that Madeleine died in the apartment didn’t exist. She mentioned feelings of shame and humiliation by Kate and Gerald MacCann after the publication of the book and the broadcast of the documentary, which are not supported, either by their personalities or by their own statements. Because of these aspects and also because this person is part of the circle of people that have worked or work for the couple and/or for the “Madeleine Fund”, her deposition is subject to a particularly critical judgement of credibility.
(iii) David Martin Trickey – the couple’s consultant in the psychology area, in the interaction between the couple and the two other children ((mentioned during evidence as “the twins”). He has been a clinical psychologist for approximately 20 years, and has worked for 10 years with families of missing children. He met the couple’s two other children a few weeks after the disappearance, mentioning that the children, due to their age, were protected from the book’s effects. He stated that it is feared that once they are exposed to the book, they may question their trust in their parents and in their capacity to protect them. He referred that another preoccupation is that the children’s friends may confront them with the book and use it to attack them. He said that his intervention with the children was drawn within the perspective of an “ambiguous loss”, alluding, in this part, to the disappearance of Madeleine McCann.
(iv) Angus McBride – lawyer, he assisted and represented Kate and Gerald McCann in that capacity, advising them over the criminal investigation, liaising with the Portuguese lawyers and aiding them “with media coverage”. He is an expert in criminal law and in dealing with the media. His deposition was almost exclusively made up of opinions, mainly over the book’s impact on public opinion in the United Kingdom.
(v) Alan Robert Pike – with a degree in social sciences, he was hired by the authors’ Algarve trip’s tourism operator, and towards the end of 2007, by the McCann couple to render services in the area of psychology. He stated that the publication of the book and of its conclusions caused the couple anguish and that one of the most devastating effects for them was believing that it would influence public opinion, making people stop looking for Madeleine. He stated that Kate McCann told him that she had spent many days crying because of the injustice that the publication of the book represented. He said that when she watched the documentary she was even more devastated. He described both members of the couple as “angry, frustrated and desperate over not being able to do anything”. When questioned about Kate and Gerald McCann’s feelings after having been made arguidos, he stated, somewhat paradoxically, that they were confused over not having been made arguidos earlier, that they were prepared for that and that the fact caused them no trauma. Once more, because this is a person that worked for the couple, his deposition is subject to a particularly critical credibility judgement, and must be placed side by side with others or safely supported on rules of common experience.
(vi) João Melchior Gomes – currently a retired Joint General Prosecutor, he was invited on the 10th of September of 2007 to take over the supervision and coordination of the criminal inquiry, which he did until November 8/9, 2010. He stated that until he left his post the inquiry was not reopened, and he was one of the signatories of the closing dispatch. He gave no further relevant information.
(vii) Ana Cláudia Brites Nogueira Santos Fernandes – Worked for the McCann couple between September of 2009 and August of 2011, in its relationship with the media. She denied that attention from the media and from the general public diminished with the book’s publication, stating that between 2009 and 2011 there were approximately 3000 news articles “very focused on the book’s opinion”. She also stated that the documentary circulated on the internet, with English subtitles.
(viii) Michael Terence Wright – married to a cousin of author Kate McCann, he knows her since she was 10 years old. He stated that the couple’s first reaction to the book was one of “a lot of anger” and that before the book there were already internet “chats” that speculated on the disappearance and talked about the possibility of death and a cover-up. The credibility of his deposition is darkened by the fact that he carried, at the time of his deposition, handwritten notes that contained, in almost perfect chronological order, topics for replies to the questions that were put to him during the final hearing.
(ix) Brigid Patricia Cameron – Gerald McCann’s sister, she came to Portugal on the Saturday following the disappearance, stayed for three months and then returned to “take” the family back to the United Kingdom. She followed authors Kate and Gerald McCann closely, revealing detailed knowledge of their emotions and states of mind, although the close family relationship advises that her deposition is always conjugated with others or the rules of common experience. She stated that when the book was published, people started calling and the pain was felt by the whole family. She stated that Kate was very down and that she was not able to deal with daily life, that she ran long distances and prayed every day. She stated that they were sad over being made arguidos, but that with the publication of the book it was different, that they “dehumanized themselves”. She stated that the twins started school in August, three and a half years ago, aged 5.
(x) Henrique Romão da Silva Leite Machado – journalist at “Correio da Manhã” since 2005, he was the author of the interview that is mentioned in the lawsuit, confirmed that the statements attributed to defendant Gonçalo Amaral in said interview belong to the latter, and were recorded.
(xi) Eduardo José Campos Dâmaso – Joint director of the same newspaper, confirmed the authenticity of the statements that are attributed to the defendant, stating that no complaint was made about a possible lack of rigor. He denied the veracity of the fact in article 22 and he confirmed the matter of article 24.
(xii) Ricardo Manuel Gonçalves Paiva – Defendant Gonçalo Amaral’s colleague and friend, he participated in the criminal investigation from the beginning until the archiving. He confirmed the note to the Media that is asked about in article 20 and stated that until this date the inquiry has not been reopened. He stated that the child’s death was a hypothesis in the investigation and that long after the book’s publication a “work group” was created to review the inquiry and to accompany solicitations from the United Kingdom’s police.
(xiii) Luís António Trindade Nunes das Neves – Director of a national unit at the Polícia Judiciária (specialised in crimes of sequestration, abduction and hostage making), he is also a friend of defendant Gonçalo Amaral. He participated in the investigation and stated that after the archiving, information about the disappearance continued to be collected, having stated that the first time that the hypothesis of death was discussed it was by the parents, who suggested the coming of a South African expert who was equipped with a machine to search for buried bodies.
(xiv) Mário Rui da Silva Sena Lopes – He was editing director of defendant Guerra e Paz and he is defendant Gonçalo Amaral’s literary agent. He stated that the cover sales price of the book, VAT included, was 13,30 euro and that the book was not sold in Brazil. He stated that part of the books were sold on consignment and part were sold firmly with a right to return. He confirmed the issue of article 24.
(xv) Luís Vitorino Torre do Valle Froes – Retired, he was general director of VC Multimedia. He stated that the DVD was edited by that company which only sold it to “Correio da Manhã”, and that newspaper then sold it to the public. He stated that leftover copies were destroyed, having been confronted with documents on pages 916 and 1047 of the injunction and documents on pages 1841 to 1843, which he explained. He stated that neither VC firm (Multimedia or Filmes) was responsible for placing the documentary on the internet.
(xvi) António Paulo Antunes dos Santos – general director of an association that defends audiovisual works, he stated that a complaint was made over the placing of the documentary on the internet.
Particularly and as far as the positive conviction is concerned, the following evidence was especially valued, in order of replies:
Article 1 – The conviction resulted from the depositions by Henrique Romão da Silva Leite Machado and Eduardo José Campos Dâmaso and there is no reason to doubt them.
Article 2 – The price in question is the one that is mentioned in the article in newspaper “24 Horas” that was copied on page 116. The proven price is the one that results from information given by defendant Guerra e Paz itself, upon request from the authors, on page 1368, with more rigour and which matches information from one of the main outlets – FNAC – on pages 1377 and 1440.
Articles 3, 4 and 7 – Information given by the Tax Authority on page 2095 was considered, which conveys an amount that is higher than the summary of receipts appended to the process and that in comparison deserves more credibility.
Article 6 – The conjunction of documents from the injunction, pages 1047 to 1053 (particularly clause 3, number 1 of that contract) with the contents of information filed by Presselivre, S.A on page 1047 of the main process was taken into consideration.
Article 8 – The conviction resulted from the conjugation of the contract reproduced on pages 923 and 924 of the injunction with the deposition by witness Luís Vitorino Torre do Valle Froes.
Article 10 – The fact is sufficiently described in the information that was given by Marktest Audimetria, S.A, and was also mentioned in the news from pages 130 and 132 of the injunction.
Article 13 – The reply to the matter of articles 12 and 13 cannot ignore the assertion (which we consider elementary from the rules of common experience) that more than any theory or opinion about the causes of the disappearance of Madeleine Beth MacCann, it is the fact of her disappearance that dominates, in negative effects, the emotional/psychological state of her parents. That negative emotional state pre-exists the book, the documentary and the interview at stake in this lawsuit and should not be confounded with the specific psychological consequences of those specific events. Therefore, if it is not credible, within that wider frame (nor was it proved) that any state of destruction (v.g emotional) of the couple was caused by the book, by the documentary or by the interview, it cannot either, under the light of a reasonable reading of the witness statements and the rules of life experience, to dismiss those events as completely neutral or innocuous. Departing from those same rules of common experience and taking into consideration the significance of the thesis that was expended in the book, in the documentary and in the interview, the diffusion that it was subject to and the depositions by Susan Hubbard, Alan Pike and Brigid Patricia Cameron, as well as their own statements, we deem it safe to state, as is done in the reply, that authors Kate MacCann felt, as a consequence of said events, anger, despair and anguish. It is further supported by evidence that they experienced preoccupation (because of fearing, as reported by several witnesses, that the thesis in the book might endanger the efforts to find their daughter) and that they suffered from insomnia and lack of appetite, as described in the witnesses’ statements.
Article 14 – It is not possible to state what the majority of people who read or viewed defendant’s Gonçalo Amaral’s thesis about the disappearance. That thesis does not include, it is believed, stating that Kate and Gerald MacCann were “responsible for their daughter’s death” but rather that they were responsible for hiding her cadaver. The claimants themselves contradicted the shame that is asked in the question, with Kate MacCann stating that she did not know if shame was the right word. That sentiment of shame does also not fit the strong personality that those close to them describe. Once again, using common experience allows us to state that they feel ill being for being seen as the authors of the concealment of their daughter’s body and the simulation of her abduction.
Article 15 – The fact also belongs to common experience and was widely corroborated by the testimony of David Martin Trickey.
Article 17 – The depositions of the latter and of the children’s aunt, Brigid Cameron, were taken into consideration.
Article 18 – The reply results from the conjugation of the information on page 1843 with the deposition by Luis Vitorino Torre do Valle Froes.
Article 19 – The fact was extracted from information supplied by the Polícia Judiciária on page 1046.
Article 20 – One considered the contents of the “Nota para a Comunicação Social” on page 536.
Article 23 – One considered the deposition by Mário Rui da Silva Sena Lopes.
Article 24 – The media diffusion of the case is a noted fact and is patent in various newspaper excerpts, blogs and sites that have been appended to the process. The publication of the books was confirmed, namely by Eduardo José Campos Dâmaso and Mário Rui da Silva Sena Lopes.
Article 25 – The fact was confirmed by himself and is documented in the process.
Articles 27 and 28 – The answer to the question faces, firstly, the problem of dichotomy between “facts that have been ascertained in the inquiry” and “facts that are equally part of the inquiry”. If one understood as facts that have been ascertained in the investigation those that, with rigour and according to procedural-penal dogmatism, resulted from the investigation, it is believed that only one would deserve that qualification – the disappearance of Madeleine MacCann. Everything that is part of the investigation, apart from that fact, is indicia, means of evidence, means of obtaining evidence and theses or hypotheses of fact, which is normal for an inquiry that has been archived due to a lack of evidence. Thus it is understood that, when one places side by side “facts that have been ascertained in the inquiry” and those that “are part of the inquiry” one is referring to the means of obtaining evidence, the means of evidence and indicia that make up the investigation itself and that are documented in the inquiry. Thus, from the reading of the book and the viewing of the documentary it is concluded that defendant Gonçalo Amaral uses, in his affirmations, mostly facts that did indeed take place and are documented in the inquiry (in the version that is available in this process). Some of the facts that were used are not complete (for example, from the report about Martin Smith’s deposition – in the inquiry, page 1606 of Volume 6) – the part where the witness states that the person that he saw carrying a child in his arms did not do it “in a comfortable manner, showing a lack of habitude”) and others that are contained in the book and in the documentary have not been included in the inquiry (v.g. the instructions that he gave to the picket when he heard about the disappearance – page 37 of the book; the statement attributed to the parents that the apartment showed break-in signs – page 44 of the book; Kate MacCann’s discomfort over the speed of the car – page 55 of the book; the hypothesis of a reconstruction of events discussed in mid-May – page 94 of the book; the “informal” identification of Robert Murat by Jane Tanner – page 108).
Article 29 – The reply is based on the conjugation of documents on pages 1819 to 1840 of the process.
Article 30 – Based on the contract that is reproduced on pages 916 to 922 of the injunction.
Article 31 – The statement by witness Luís Vitorino Torre do Valle Froes was taken into account, as no evidence was produced to contradict it.
Articles 32 to 34 – Based on the contract that is reproduced on pages 1047 to 1053 of the injunction and on the aforementioned statement. The invoices reproduced on pages 1841 and 1842 of the process were also taken into consideration.
Article 35 – The fact is corroborated by the contents of the contract celebrated with Presselivre and also resulted from witness statements.
Article 36 – The depositions by Luis Vitorino Torre do Valle Froes and António Paulo Antunes dos Santos are considered, the fact being in agreement with common experience.
Article 37 – The fact belongs to common experience.
The negative replies and the non-demonstrated part of the restrictive replies result from an insufficiency of evidence produced for a safe conviction or from the circumstance that the related facts have been rebutted, considering the aforementioned reasons and those that are described below:
a) Article 5 – Apart from what results from page 253 of the injunction about publicity, on a Brazilian internet “site”, about the book, under the item “imported books”, the fact was not proved and witness Mário Rui da Silva Sena Lopes denied that the defendant sold the book in Brazil.
b) Article 9 – The fact was not proved and denied by witness Luis Vitorino Torre do Valle Froes.
c) Article 11 – The statement is denied by the information supplied by the Polícia Judiciária on pages 1116 and 1292, while it tries to attribute an action to the criminal police force that is contrary to the principle of officiality of the criminal process.
d) Article 12 – It was not proved that authors Kate and Gerald MacCann are destroyed under a moral, social and ethical point of view. From the family point of view the evidence showed a successful effort of cohesion and assistance (as seen in Brigid Cameron’s statement). From the sentimental/emotional point of view it is not credible that the consequences of the facts in this process reach the point of destruction or that they reach far beyond the pain that was provoked by the disappearance of the authors’ daughter.
e) Article 16 – It is not safe, from the available evidence, to discern what within the alleged facts is a consequence of Madeleine’s disappearance and what is an effect of the book/documentary/interview.
f) Article 21 – No documentary evidence was given, by a certificate from the criminal process, that revealed the veracity of the fact.
g) Article 22 – The affirmation was profusely denied by evidence.
Lisbon, January 21, 2015
translation ends here
The above translated text is based on the following affirmations that the civil court set out to prove – or disprove.
Is it proven that: 1. Gonçalo Amaral made the statements that are attributed to him under item Z)*?
*(item Z is the Correio da Manhã interview)
2. The cover price of the book “Maddie, A Verdade da Mentira” in Portugal is € 13.80, including VAT?
3. Defendant Gonçalo Amaral has earned from the sale of the book “Maddie, A Verdade da Mentira” an amount that is not less than € 621.000,00?
4. Defendant Gonçalo Amaral has earned from the sale of editions in foreign languages of the book an amount that is not less than € 498.750,00?
5. The book was sold in Brazil by defendant “Guerra e Paz, Editores, S.A.”?
6. The DVD has a cover price of € 6,00?
7. Defendant Gonçalo Amaral has earned from the sale of the DVD an amount that is not less than € 112.500,00?
8. The DVD that is mentioned under AN) has been edited and the edited copies have been sold by defendant “V.C. – Valentim de Carvalho – Filmes, Audiovisuais, S.A.”?
9. Defendant “V.C. – Valentim de Carvalho – Filmes, Audiovisuais, S.A.”? has already made the DVD, in an English version, available for immediate delivery via internet order?
10. At least two million and two hundred thousand people have watched the programme that was broadcast on 13.4.2009?
11. Because of the statements made by defendant Gonçalo Amaral in the book, in the documentary and in the interview to Correio da Manhã, the Polícia Judiciária stopped collecting information and investigating the disappearance of Madeleine MacCann?
12. Because of the statements made by defendant Gonçalo Amaral in the book, in the documentary and in the interview to Correio da Manhã, authors Kate MacCann and Gerald MacCann are completely destroyed, from a moral, social, ethical, sentimental, family point of view, much beyond the pain that their daughter’s absence causes them?
13. Because of the statements made by defendant Gonçalo Amaral in the book, in the documentary and in the interview to Correio da Manhã, authors Kate MacCann and Gerald MacCann suffer permanent anguish, insomnia, lack of appetite, anxiety and irritability, preoccupation and indefinable fear?
14. Authors Kate MacCann and Gerald MacCann feel a deep shame and an indescribable ill-being because they are considered, by most people who know the theories of defendant Gonçalo Amaral, as having responsibility in the death of their daughter, being so cowardly that they have hidden her cadaver, simulating abduction, all of this to avoid criminal accusations?
15. Authors Kate MacCann and Gerald MacCann live under enormous daily pressure due to the need to keep their younger children away from the knowledge of defendant Gonçalo Amaral’s opinions about their moral integrity?
16. Namely because of defendant Gonçalo Amaral’s statements in the book, in the documentary and in the interview to Correio da Manhã, author Kate MacCann is immerged in a deep and serious depression, which has already made her state publicly “I wish I was in a coma, to relieve the pain”?
17. Sean and Amelie MacCann will soon become aware of the conclusions that are mentioned in J), because they will go to school?
18. 63.369 copies of the DVD were not sold, having been destroyed afterwards?
19. Defendant Gonçalo Amaral has gone into retirement from the Polícia Judiciária on 1.6.2008?
20. On 22.6.2008, the Attorney General’s Office published a note for the media, announcing the archiving of the inquiry, awaiting better evidence?
21. The criminal inquiry was reopened due to the appearance of new evidence?
22. The attention of the media and of people in general diminished when defendant Gonçalo Amaral’s book was published?
23. The sale of the books was made on consignment, being subject to devolution for various reasons, like handling, manufacturing defects or their non-transaction?
24. The so-called “Maddie Case” has been profoundly treated within the Portuguese and foreign society, whether by the media, or through books, like those authored by Paulo Pereira Cristóvão, Manuel Catarino and Hernâni Carvalho?
25. The so-called “Maddie Case” was commented upon by Dr. Francisco Moita Flores, former inspector, writer, criminalist and commentator, in various media?
26. Have authors Kate MacCann and Gerald MacCann hired communication firms and spokespeople through the Madeleine Fund?
27. Are the facts that are reported by defendant Gonçalo Amaral in the book and in the aforementioned interviews, like he himself writes and said, facts that were established during the inquiry?
28. Does the documentary only contain facts that are also in the inquiry files?
29. The social capital of defendant “V.C. – Valentim de Carvalho – Filmes, Audiovisuais, S.A.” is held, in 60%, by the firm “Estúdios Valentim de Carvalho, Gravações e Audiovisuais, S.A.” and, in 40%, by the Fundo de Investimento para o Cinema e o Audiovisual?
30. Has defendant “V.C. – Valentim de Carvalho – Filmes, Audiovisuais, S.A.” ceded the rights to sell, distribute, exhibit and broadcast all of the cinematographic and audiovisual work that it creates, develops and produces to the firm “Valentim de Carvalho Multimédia, S.A.”?
31. Until today, has the documentary been reproduced only once to be edited, published and sold in Portugal under video format, in this case a DVD?
32. The reproduction and edition of the documentary in video format have been authorised by “Valentim de Carvalho Multimédia, S.A.” to firm “Presslivre, Imprensa Livre, S.A.”, the owner of the Correio da Manhã newspaper, according to a contract between both?
33. Under which [contract], the DVD, its covers and packages would be, as they were, manufactured on behalf of, under order of and under the responsibility of Presslivre, in order to be distributed and sold together with newspaper Correio da Manhã?
34. And the entire process of registering and classifying the video edition (DVD) of the documentary with ICAG would be, as it was, developed by Valentim de Carvalho Multimédia, a process whose cost would be carried by Presslivre, as it did?
35. The distribution for sale took place in conjunction with the distribution for sale of the newspaper Correio da Manhã’s edition of April 24, 2009?
36. The documentary was reproduced, and even subtitled in the English language, by third parties that published it on the internet, without permission and against the will of the defendant “V.C. – Valentim de Carvalho – Filmes, Audiovisuais, S.A.”?
37. That illicit diffusion damages not only the rights that are held by defendant “V.C. – Valentim de Carvalho – Filmes, Audiovisuais, S.A.” over the documentary, but also its commercial exploration, because any citizen can watch the documentary, also only one “click” away?