34873452_10209670629001361_5806394342188777472_n.jpg

Re Letters concerning UK publication of The Truth of the Lie

Dear Editor,

I would be interested to know how many of your correspondents in Letters of November 5 have actually read the book.

I suggest that most, if not all, have NOT and are making assumptions based on misinformation in the British press.  

Gonçalo Amaral was initially convicted of providing a false deposition, NOT perjury, but this is subject to appeal so there is no effective conviction – just as would be the case in UK, and the statements by Norman Walker and J Smith are therefore less than accurate. 

I have to assume that Diane Askey and J Smith have actually read the book to be in the position to make such pronouncements as it being “full of lies” and “this book of untruths”.

The information in the book is all in the public domain and the Appeals Judges state that they “do not verify any reference to any facts that are not in dispatch”, referring to the dispatch of evidence signed by two Public Ministry Magistrates.

In other words, there is nothing in the book that is not in the police files and it is interesting that J Smith asks for the comparison to be made between the police files and the book.

This is precisely what the Appeals Judges did in reaching their verdict so I challenge these two correspondents to point out the lies and untruths in the book. Or do they claim that the Magistrates were lying too?  

Following on from the Appeals ruling, Adrian Upshon appears not to have taken account of this ruling, claiming that Dr Amaral has made defamatory comments and false accusations.

In point of fact, Dr Amaral has put forward suggestions of possible scenarios, not statements of fact as indicated by Mr Upshon – please explain where suggestions of possible scenarios are defamatory, false or libellous.    

Taking on board J Smith’s comment about there being “NO EVIDENCE” that the McCanns were involved in their daughter’s disappearance, it is quite correct to state that there is no evidence of their guilt, but conversely neither is there any evidence of their innocence.

The lack of evidence does not mean that a crime has not been committed, simply that it cannot be proven and many criminals are released the world over because of the lack of evidence – does this proclaim their innocence?  

NAME AND ADDRESS WITHHELD