On trouvera ici des documents liés à l'action pour dommages et intérêts entreprise par la famille MC (dont Madeleine) contre Gonçalo Amaral, la maison d'édition de son livre (Guerra&Paz), la société qui produisit le documentaire inspiré par le livre et en distribua le DVD (VC Filmes), la chaîne TV qui le diffusa le documentaire (TVI).
La juge remit aux avocats lors de la dernière audience, le 21 janvier 2015, un document contenant entre autres les quesitos, les questions en jeu à partir desquels la juge construirait sa sentence, afin de permettre aux avocats d'élaborer leurs alegações de direito, leurs interprétations de la loi quant aux questions retenues par la juge. Lorsque la juge reprend une question telle qu'elle l'a rédigée après compilations de tous les éléments recueillis, elle se contente de mentionner "prouvée" ou "non prouvé" (tous les avocats ont préalablement reçu la liste des questions, ici reproduites en italiques). Lorsque la juge a dû reformuler la question, celle-ci est figure intégralement ("unquoted").
Ce document, qui n'a pas vocation d'être rendu public, l'a cependant été en partie dans des circonstances quelque peu rocambolesques mais non négligeables puisque il s'est agi de mettre fin aux désinformations provenant de l'agence de presse Lusa, qui n'a pas suivi le principe fondamental et crucial de croiser les informations et vérifier les sources avant de répandre une nouvelle à l'échelle internationale.
1. Décisions sur les points retenus : pp. 1-3
1. Decisions on proved points
2. Proved that the defendant Guerra&Paz fixed the cover price of the book “Maddie, A Verdade da Mentira” in Portugal at € 13.33.
According to the allegation 2 : 13,80, IVA included (tax for books is 6%).
3. and 4. Proved that the defendant Gonçalo Amaral earned from the sales of the book “Maddie, A Verdade da Mentira” in 2008 and 2009 an amount of € 342.111,86.
According to the allegation 3 : GA earned from the sales in Portugal € 621.000,00.
According to the allegation 4, GA has earned from the sale of editions in foreign languages of the book not less than € 498.750,00.
5. The book was sold in Brazil by defendant Guerra e Paz, Editores SA.
Not proved (unquoted)
6. Proved that the DVD was sold for € 6,95 by Presselivre Imprensa SA together with the newspaper Correio da Manhã of which this society was the owner.
According to the allegation 6 : cover price of € 6,00.
7. Proved that the defendant Gonçalo Amaral earned € 40.000 from DVD sales in 2008. According to the allegation 7, he earned from the sale of the DVD € 112.500,00.
8. Proved that the DVD was edited and the edited copies were commercialized by Valentim de Carvalho – Filmes, Audiovisuais SA through an agreement with "Presselivre SA".
The allegation 8 uses "sold" instead of "commercialized".
9. The defendant Valentim de Carvalho – Filmes, Audiovisuais SA had already made the DVD, in an English version, available for immediate delivery via internet order.
Not proved (unquoted)
10. At least 2.200.000 people have watched the program that was broadcast on 13.4.2009. Proved (unquoted)
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.
Not proved (unquoted)
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.
Not proved (unquoted)
13. Proved that as a consequence of the affirmations of Gonçalo Amaral in his book, in the documentary and in the interview with Correio da Manha, the claimants felt anger, despair, anxiety, preoccupation, having insomnia and lack of appetite.
According to allegation 13, the claimants felt "permanent anguish, insomnia, lack of appetite, anxiety and irritability, preoccupation and indefinable fear".
14. Proved that the couple feel badly about being considered responsible for hiding their daughter's body and simulating her abduction by those who believe in defendant Gonçalo Amaral's thesis on the disappearance of Madeleine McCann.
According to allegation 14, the claimants 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. Proved that the couple feel with much concern the necessity to keep their younger children away from finding out about said thesis.
According to allegation 15, the claimants 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, claimant Kate McCann is immersed in a deep and serious depression, which has already made her state publicly “I wish I was in a coma, to relieve the pain”.
Not proved (unquoted)
17. Proved that Sean and Amelie started school in August of 2010, not having learned about defendant Gonçalo Amaral's thesis yet.
According to allegation 17, Sean and Amelie MacCann will soon become aware of the conclusions that are mentioned in the process, because they will go to school.
18. 63.369 copies of the DVD were not sold, having been destroyed afterwards.
19. Proved that defendant Gonçalo Amaral's retirement from the PJ started on July 1st, 2008.
According to allegation 19 the date is 1.6.2008 (lost in transcription ?)
20. Proved that the Attorney General’s Office turned public a note ("nota para a comunicação social) on the 21st of June of 2008 (lost in transcription ?), announcing the archiving of the inquiry on the facts and informing that it could be reopened on the MP's initiative or at the request of someone concerned, if new evidence appeared that would prompt serious, relevant and consequent diligences.
According to the allegation 20, the date is 22.6.2008 (another lost in transcription ? The date was in fact the 21st of July 2008).
21. The criminal inquiry was reopened due to the appearance of new evidence.
Not proved (unquoted)
22. The attention of the media and of people in general diminished when defendant Gonçalo Amaral’s book was published.
Not proved (unquoted)
23. Proved that the book sales were in part done by consignment (deposit) and partly firmly sold with a right to return copies for various motives like production fault, damage of fabrication or rough handling or remaining unsold.
According to allegation 23, the sale was only 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. For unknown reasons, the "materia de prova" jumps over this article, though there is an allegation 26 :
Have authors Kate MacCann and Gerald MacCann hired communication firms and spokespeople through the Madeleine Fund ?
27. and 28. Proved that the facts referred to in the book, in the interview do Correio da Manha and in the documentary concerning the investigation are mostly facts that occurred and are documented in that investigation.
The allegation 27 concerns only the book and the interview, whereas the allegation 28 questions that the documentary uses only facts that are also in the inquiry files.
29. After a deliberation on October 27th 2008 the capital of VC Filmes was increased, and registered on September 28th 2009, the effect of which being that the capital of that firm was now detained in a proportion of 60% by Estúdios Valentim de Carvalho, Gravações e Audiovisuais SA and of 40% by Fundo de Investimento para o Cinema e o Audiovisual.
30. Proved that on June 6th 2008 defendant VC Filmes agreed to yield to VC Multimedia the rights to commercialize, distribute, exhibit and broadcast several cinematographic and audiovisuals works (films, mini-series and documentaries) that were to be produced within 5 years.
The allegation 30 uses again "sell" instead of "commercialize" and, instead of "several... within 5 years", mentions "all of the cinematographic and audiovisual work that it creates, develops and produces".
31. Until today the documentary has 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 SA to Presslivre, Imprensa Livre SA, the owner of the Correio da Manhã newspaper, according to a contract between both.
33. 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. 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, the cost of the process being carried by Presslivre, as it did.
35. Proved only that the documentary was distributed for sale together with the distribution for sale of the newspaper Correio da Manha.
According to allegation 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 Valentim de Carvalho – Filmes, Audiovisuais SA.
37. Illicit diffusion damages not only the rights that are held by defendant Valentim de Carvalho – Filmes, Audiovisuais SA over the documentary, but also its commercial exploration, because any citizen can watch the documentary, also only one “click” away.
s) Information from defendant Guerra&Paz about the sale price of the book – p. 1368 of the P.
v) Declaration of VASP about the sending for destruction of 63.369 copies of the DVD – p. 1843 of the P.
Had the MCs asked on time the judge couldn't refuse. She did, they appealed and won. 6 months suspension, though not only due to that appeal..
** The diligences realized by the authorities to gather evidence. For example phone listening, laptop analysing, etc.
Art 5. Apart from what appears on p. 253 of the PC regarding the publicity for the book made on a Brazilian website in the "imported books" section, no evidence was brought and the witness Mario Sena Lopes denied that the defendant had commercialized the book in Brazil.
Art 9. This fact was not proved and was denied by the witness Luis Froes.
Art 11. The affirmation, that is refuted by the information provided by the PJ in pp. 1116-1292, points besides a not very plausible actuation of that criminal police organ, contradicting the principle of the criminal process' notoriety.
Art 12. It was not proved that the claimants are destroyed from a moral, social and ethical point of view. From the family point of view, Patricia Cameron's statement reveals a successful effort of cohesion and mutual assistance. From the sentimental/emotional point of view it is not credible that the sequels of the facts of these deeds reach the point of destruction much beyond the pain already caused by the disappearance of the claimants' daughter.
Art 16. It is not possible, from the perspective of the available evidence, to discriminate among those alleged facts those that are consequences of Madeleine's disappearance and those that were induced by the book/documentary/interview.
Art. 21. No documented evidence was produced, by certificate of the criminal process, revealing the veracity of that fact.
Art 22. The affirmation was copiously hackneyed by proved facts.
In law, the proof (a prova) is any means to convince the judge about the truth of a fact. "A prova" provides the pertinent items of evidence thanks to which the judge may form a judgement.