She insists that it is worse than the book.
She says the book is very well written, easy
VC - Are the facts of the
criminal investigation the same as close expressed
in the book? If the conclusions...
IS again interrupts, but
not to answer. She speaks with a great volubility
which renders her speech difficult to understand.
She speaks of the newspaper Correio da Manhã
and of delirious theories of conspiracy.
c) Guerra & Paz's lawyer's
GP - asks since when did IS
commence working in journalism.
IS says she started in
1981 and starts listing everything she did in a
The Judge intervenes to remind
the witness this is a judgement and not to be
sarcastic by entering into such minute detail.
GP - was the decrease of news
related to the fact it was a book?
IS answers it's obvious
that news may emerge when, for example, there's a
judgement. The feeling is that people think that
what happened is already known.
GP - but...
IS interrupts GP again
saying that when there are doubts, people speak a
lot. She starts describing how a journalist works.
GP - asks if someone was in
charge of marketing of the book.
IS says that marketing
actions, to-day, can't be bypassed. She resumes a
narrative about the marketing of books, including
books for children, cooking, novels, etc.
GP - mentions the three other books written on the
case and asks about their marketing.
IS says she didn't read
GP – Do you know how many copies
the Correio da Manha sells?
IS knows, but asks "what
has that got to do with the issue?"
The Judge overrules the
witness's question and observes the witness is
continuously attempting to give meaning to what she
says. IS interrupts the Judge and protests. The
Judge concludes she can't help it.
GP – In your editorials you
mentioned the position of Gonçalo Amaral...
IS again interrupts saying
there are two kinds of things in a newspaper, facts
and articles of opinion.
GP – Didn't you say your
objective was to clarify things in order to inform
IS answers that from the
beginning, in May 2007, she claimed she would be
objective and wouldn't necessarily be on the side of
the parents, known to be the initial suspects in
this kind of case.
GP reminds her that the book was
published on the 24th July while the Final Report
was released on the 21st July. She wants to know if
GA could be aware of the Final Report's conclusions.
The Judge overrules.
d) Santos Oliveira (GA lawyer)
SO - Are your opinions only based
IS says "not only". She
mentions TV programs, books.
SO - Have you read all the Final
IS says "no".
SO – Are you aware that the Final
Report indicates the child to be most likely dead?
IS says she is.
SO – Since this hypothesis exists
in the Final Report, the book...
IS interrupts again saying
the fact of death doesn't mean that the parents are
The Judge – The Final report
doesn't say the homicide is due to the parents.
She reads this part from the
|No respeitante aos outros crimes indiciados não
passam disso mesmo e pese embora se nos afigurar não
ser de descartar, dado o seu elevado grau de
probabilidade, a verificação dum homicídio, tal não
pode passar de mera suposição por carência de
elementos de sustentação nos autos.
|Concerning the other indicated crimes, they are no
more than that and despite our perception that, due
to its high degree of probability, the occurrence of
a homicide cannot be discarded, such cannot be more
than a mere supposition, due to the lack of
sustaining elements in the files.
SO - But the book doesn't say
that the homicide was due to the parents. If the
book doesn't say anything else that what's in the...
IS interrupts, but in turn
is immediately interrupted by the Judge.
Judge: Let me do this part!
End of day 4.