Dr Martin Roberts:A word in your ear

Go down

Dr Martin Roberts:A word in your ear Empty Dr Martin Roberts:A word in your ear

Post  Guest on Thu 04 Jun 2015, 7:59 am


A Word In Your Ear

Dr Martin Roberts analyses the recent Portuguese court ruling.

By Dr Martin Roberts
01 May 2015


By now, thanks to the hurried efforts of Dona Isabel Duarte, the entire Western world has been given the news of the McCanns' successful litigation against Dr. Goncalo Amaral. What will not have been fully explained to the media of course is that the judge in this instance had virtually to invent a reason for awarding them anything at all, much less the astronomical sum announced.

£375,000 may represent the extent of the McCanns' demands with respect to themselves, but it far and away exceeds any comparable award so far by a Portuguese court to a Portuguese. In addition, the arguments advanced as a justification are not merely weak, they are in error. It's as though, if the good lady judge were a mathematician she would be in the habit of reading graphs upside down!

The decision to award the sum demanded was based, not on the evidence heard, but an essay in Jurisprudence, researched by the arbitrator herself, in which Goncalo Amaral is portrayed as a public servant subject to restriction, as though he had signed the Portuguese equivalent of the Official Secrets Act. For balance, courts too are obliged to observe the presumption of innocence in any statement they might make concerning suspects under investigation, so as not to prejudice or jeopardize any prosecution.

In the event that a public official is not sworn to secrecy, exactly how long must they be 'out of office' before they are allowed to comment upon anything contentious? The final decision of this court was supposed to have been given in private, so no blame could be attached to any official statement emanating from it. But what about evidence given at previous hearings? Might not the (publicly reported) statements of such as PJ Inspector Ricardo Paiva be viewed as 'prejudicial to the presumption of innocence'? No castigation offered in that direction though, eh?

In sum, and based upon legal precedent, apparently, we have the duty of a public servant (and others) toward a suspect under investigation, levied against a man no longer in public office, and on behalf of two people who are not suspects, not being investigated, and in no imminent danger of standing trial for anything at all. Does that make any sense?

There are two very clear (and opposing) schools of thought concerning the relationship or otherwise between Operation Grange and the McCann/Amaral stand-off being progressed through the civil courts. This latest decision, evaluated in complete isolation, is nigh-on inexplicable – except when viewed in a context of suitability.

Monetarily, the McCanns benefit, and beyond what should have been their wildest expectations in the wake of the evidence previously heard by this court. But it was never about the money, so they say. There is also the glaring anomaly of the judge, hearing a case for damages, suddenly and inexplicably making a pronouncement concerning Goncalo Amaral's book, quite beyond her judicial remit, taking it upon herself to reverse the earlier decision of a higher court and citing her own research as justification!

Again the McCanns benefit, but they are not alone.

Imagine the difficulty facing the decision makers behind Operation Grange, should the damages awarded the McCanns have genuinely reflected the evidence heard and assessed in Lisbon. How does one justify closing down a review/investigation that has just eaten up four years and £10 million, having identified neither abductor nor evidence of abduction, if the bottom line, as last defined in Portugal, was that the McCanns' claims were worth 'tuppence' and The Truth of the Lie is not only legitimate, but accurate!

As far as the case is concerned, the McCanns did not win the argument. The result however is very much 'against the run of play'. It not only supports, albeit tenuously, their claims of victory, but extends to promote the conclusion that Goncalo Amaral's published remarks, and by implication the concomitant (and troublesome) observations made by the original (Portuguese) process, are in error.

Suddenly, and with fiscal testimony to the illegitimacy of Amaral's reasoning (and by implication the PJ's original position) the counterweight to the McCanns' claims of abduction has been lifted once more. Hence Scotland Yard can relax in the understanding that their investigating a case of abduction was appropriate all along.

Whether Goncalo Amaral appeals the decision at this stage is secondary and largely irrelevant, given the time delay involved. The fact remains that the Grange curtain can be brought down now, courtesy of a judge who has seen fit to portray the McCanns as injured parties, not on account of the evidence, but in spite of it.

DCI Redwood has retired, just as he was on the verge of cracking the biggest abduction case since the Lindbergh baby, DCI Nicola Wall has been brought in to answer the 'phone, and the McCanns, with their eyes focussed on another big pay day, propose to continue where Operation Grange is shortly to leave off (according to Clarence Mitchell at least, and he should know).

If a UK diplomat can influence the direction of a police investigation conducted on foreign soil, there is no reason whatever to believe that 'sweet nothings' cannot be whispered into the ear of a foreign judge, even after a case hearing is concluded, allowing the McCanns to continue searching for their daughter in the same fashion as Hercules, who stubbornly insisted on looking for his dead chum Hylas, whose body lay buried beneath the shattered bronze remains of a Titan (according to Ray Harryhausen at least). We don't yet know what Madeleine is buried under.

Anonymous said...
I wish I could infer something different from what we are seeing; and from what is so well stated here. Sadly I can't.

3 May 2015 at 08:41
Himself said...
I would so like to disagree with you.

Whereas everybody is entitled to an opinion, in spite of the expenditure in time and money by the Met without result, in spite of avoiding the obvious for four years, there are still more people with faith in the Met, than there are those with none.

Which only leaves me to question their intellectual ability.
3 May 2015 at 09:11
Anonymous said...

What a sordid world we have to live in.
3 May 2015 at 10:38
Himself said...
"Confused?" Unless you deleted your own comment, the point is, Blogger recognises a troll when it sees one.

Ergo: Non appearance of you pointless shite.

Which I must say, I find somewhat amusing.

But nevertheless, I shall reproduce your inanity.

Confused? So this whole article has been copied and pasted here, without quotes. So this site, is what providing a platform for comment, or is there a point

Which leaves me but to say, don't come here trolling, you can't win, I control the comments.

3 May 2015 at 11:12
Anonymous said...

I can`t believe that it is such a culture shock for some people to appreciate the way these affairs can be conducted.

Pierre Hadot (not your archetypal "conspiracy nut"):

victims are not considered first...The Church is not, for that matter, the only one practicing hypocrisy. In analogous situations the army or the police are not outdone; they also have esprit de corps. Reasons of State, reasons of the Church - there are always good reasons.

3 May 2015 at 11:35
Anonymous said...
No shock to me Agnos, just sadness and frustration with world politics and the utter contempt for ordinary citizens demonstrated once again.
3 May 2015 at 11:50
Anonymous said...
This propaganda storm was ready, the verdict beautifully timed (won't go on too long as election close) and very confusing. Well done! SKY in particular.
TM is are collateral beneficiaries of this spin and the beauty of it is that someone else is paying them.

But there's us - another troll example imminent? Didn't work last time although Guardian is now gearing up.
3 May 2015 at 13:34
Let Amaral Speak! said...
I think yes, another troll example is imminent and my money is on the upcoming Jenny Kleeman documentary. It's probably going to be just another "Poor McCanns vs Vile Internet Trolls" fest, and hopefully it will end up in the same Poundland bargain bin as the Summers and Swan bullsh*te.
3 May 2015 at 14:43
guerra said...
This judge's decision reminds me of a comedy skit I once saw where a film critic was being interviewed and was asked what he thought of a certain movie. The critic launched himself into a long diatribe, trashing every aspect of the movie, when he was finished the interviewer said: "so, this is not a movie that our viewers should bother seeing?" The interviewer was left in shock when the film critic replied in an upbeat mood that it was a great movie and that he highly recommended it.

The propaganda storm is expected; I said before this misnamed "libel" trial took place that if the McCanns win the English speaking media around the world would have a field day declaring that Mr. Amaral lied. And I also said that Mr. Amaral would win on appeal but that it wouldn't matter because the English speaking world would not report his victory.

The English speaking world was told this was a libel trial but it was not told that higher courts had overturned the injunction to ban Mr. Amaral's book. Therefore for the uninformed, which is the majority, the injunction was still in place and it would only be lifted if Mr. Amaral won, if the McCanns were to win these people naturally expected that the book would be banned for good. The decision by this judge to ban the book, which is quite convenient for the McCanns, further reinforces the belief that this was a libel trial and that it has been proven that Mr. Amaral lied.
3 May 2015 at 18:27
Himself said...
Thank you all for your thoughts.

Let Amaral Speak: I have it on good authority, that it is Sonia Poulton's documentary that you should be looking forward to.

If I were to be entirely truthful, I am at a loss.

I am at a loss as to how, how in the first instance, in a modern day European democracy, in a civil action I remind you, does a book get banned?

How, in that same European democracy in that same civil action, does a fellow have all his assets confiscated?

If we are to believe John Blacksmith, the ban and confiscation are the result of testimony by the McCanns, of 'promised new damaging evidence' to a wet behind the ears judge.

Maybe, maybe not. The answer to Blacksmith's thesis might be found at this link.


Might be found that is, for anyone prepared to wade through the monumental amount of legalise
to be found there.

But it won't be me wading through it, I can assure you of that.

But the minutiae, if we look at my simplistic overview, should be quite academic. Returning as we must to fact that every freedom (civil rights) that is attributed to every citizen of every modern democracy, has been well and truly been trampled on as a result of the initial ruling.

In, I remind you again, a civil case.

It is said, the law is an ass, but I wouldn't even begin to try to define Portuguese law. At best it's a complete shambles, at worst, they make it up as they go along. See Martin Roberts above.

The last time I looked, Portugal was still in the EU and still subject to basic EU laws regarding civil rights. It's not changed has it?

Perhaps it is me, that is over-simplifying the issue, perhaps it's not?

But there is nothing simple about the obscene amount of damages, euro500,000, awarded to the McCanns, for, for want of a better understanding, hurt feelings.

Against a man, I add, whose assets are still frozen and who has to depend on the generosity of strangers in order to conduct his own defence.

Something rotten in the State of Portugal, if you ask me.

4 May 2015 at 10:19
Anonymous said...
Well, for my sins, I have waded through it (inexpertly, I might be add).

It appears to be as decisive a ruling as could possibly be made. A civil dispute could not possibly overrule an Appellate Judgement that cites the ECHR. Could it?

No judge is so "wet behind the ears" as to rule with respect to promised new evidence. Where is this promise being asserted as testimony (apart from JB`s blog)? When did the McCanns make this submission to the civil process? Who has seen it? What about Amaral`s right to a promised new defence. It's turtles all the way down, is it?

The hearing itself was not conducted so naively.

The ruling, as Guerra has said, is unsustainable.

But for the moment it exists (re Dr Roberts` suggestion?).

Just my opinion.

4 May 2015 at 11:39
Anonymous said...
We are in a global war against greed, corruption and truth.

My hope is this sorry saga wakes yet more people up to the depth of the contemptuous assault on citizens and the depraved complicity of MSM.
4 May 2015 at 11:49
Anonymous said...
Further thoughts...

Even if it might be said that the judgement re this civil case is itself the "new evidence" that has brought about the overturn of an Appellate decision, we are still in the same tautology.

The Appellate ruling is not an undertaking that might be overturned by a determination of civil damages. It's entire frame reference is with respect to that possibility (damage to reputation etc) - but it still rules in Amaral`s favour (ECHR). So it appears to me!

Sorry, I can`t believe that the judge was simply naive.

4 May 2015 at 13:32
Anonymous said...
Thank you Himself for posting Martin Roberts' excellent analysis. Quote:

Again the McCanns benefit, but they are not alone.

Imagine the difficulty facing the decision makers behind Operation Grange, should the damages awarded the McCanns have genuinely reflected the evidence heard and assessed in Lisbon. How does one justify closing down a review/investigation that has just eaten up four years and £10 million, having identified neither abductor nor evidence of abduction, if the bottom line, as last defined in Portugal, was that the McCanns' claims were worth 'tuppence' and The Truth of the Lie is not only legitimate, but accurate!

I couldn't agree more.

Also, interesting reading in the comment section. I'm all ears. M
5 May 2015 at 07:01
Anonymous said...

From comment Anonymous 1:17 p.m.


The banning of any future publication of the book, if true, would see the overturning of a decision by the highest court in the land. This not only brings the Portuguese judicial system into disrepute, but, strangely, into perfect alignment with the ruinously expensive farce being played out via the UK media on behalf of the UK police and whoever their masters are.
Of course, none of this will end well for any of these parties, because everyone perceives that anyone going near the McCanns is playing with fire. (Well, some are playing catch-up it seems at the cost of their own reputations.) Every man and his dog round the globe now know, KNOW, that the game was well and truly up the moment two modern democracies ( I use the term loosely) tried to hammer a financially stricken man into the ground with damages never before seen in Portugal's civil suit history.
9 May 2015 at 17:42
anonymous said...
The entire Mccann case is an establishment coverup of unprecedented proportions. People very "high up" are running the show and have been since 3rd May '07 minus 2 days. The verdict in Portugal which goes against the run of play and the law there, indicates to anyone with any intelligence, that it is a coverup of very sinister activity which must never come out
11 May 2015 at 22:09
Himself said...
Thank you all so very much for your input.

And latterly 11 May 2015 at 22:09

Just what is it that needs a cover-up of these proportions and to do so in the full glare and scrutiny of WORLD opinion?

It's beyond my ken.

But whatever it is, it's unsustainable.
12 May 2015 at 12:55
Himself said...

You posted the following comment which failed to appear.

It;s not unheard of for Blogger to deem the occasional comment as spam.

This obviously is one of those occasions.

Tip: when posting comments on blogs and forums, ALWAYS copy your text into your mouse at the very least before hitting the send button.

I have been the victim of such things in the past, usually after writing the most lengthy, and profound of course, comments, that one lost, can never be repeated.

Oh, the wailing and the gnashing.

You Wrote:

The incisive dignity of Amaral`s comments make for a stark contrast with the backsliding of Hogan-Howe. I think Bernie appeared almost desperate to convince us of the `operational` reality of the search for that child. But if the decision about Grange`s future is genuinely down to him alone (and genuinely operational) then why the need to (re)affirm the support of Cameron and May. Is that some kind of new statutory requirement for all ongoing investigations? Or just this one?
What happens if he loses their support? Is it conditional, like the remit?


Rather than address you directly, let me copy this communication to a significant other. (M R)

The content of which, I don't think you will find uninteresting.

Good day Sir

Maren sent me a most interesting link. But before opening, a bit of background, and that’s all it is, a bit. (2nd link)


It is possible, with it being a PDF, that it is a stand-alone document. (or not) Cursory browsing of the website, and found under “Evidence” in the sub-header, was this article:


Where the writer declares intent and the only reference to BHH, that I have found so far.

I also advise that I am preparing a statement which will be sent to Sir Bernard Hogan-Howe, Commissioner, Metropolitan Police. The statement will detail allegations of political corruption that came my way when I was investigating allegations of political corruption during the 1980’s. These allegations include: . . .

An interesting feeder article, with all the usual suspects of course, but this bit caught my eye. How the system works:

Subsequently, over a rent dispute which is still a matter of litigation, Dr. Julian Lewis, now Conservative MP for New Forest (East) but then deputy head of research at Conservative Central Office in Smith Square, managed to purchase the contents of our offices, which included all our files. It had been alleged that we owed rent, which we disputed, but under a court order the landlords were able to change the locks and seize our assets which included all our files, including those we had made on paedophiles. It was apparently quite legal, but it was most certainly a dirty trick.

But back to the BHH link:


If a fellow were to view the thing subjectively, as you do, human nature being just that, human nature, one cannot help but come away thinking, well, doesn’t it all make sense?

Linked from the BHH article, this:


Which is a “reader” in its own right, shedding more light on Theresa May’s ill-judged attempt to foist Butler-Sloss and Fiona Woolf as head of the child abuse inquiry.

To say nothing of the, ‘list as long as your arm’ (51) of alleged paedos in high places.
17 May 2015 at 14:31
Anonymous said...
I am slowly picking my jaw up from the ground. As you say, doesn't it all make sense.
Some people might describe it as joining the dots, but it appears to me that the lines are already there.
Hogan-Howe is not known for his subtlety. When invoking the support of Cameron and May, it's as though he could hardly restrain himself from spelling out the obvious: they're all in it together.

Can we imagine the officer leading the Claudia Lawrence investigation having to say the same? Of course not. That is a police matter; whereas OG is self-evidently a matter for the government.

Thank you again for taking the time to retrieve the links, things certainly become a little clearer. When will people wake up?

Regards for now,


Back to top Go down

Back to top

Permissions in this forum:
You cannot reply to topics in this forum