The timeline and events following Madeleine McCann's disappearance.

[Robittybob1]

Definitive study of the timeline and the relationship between the various things that have happened to the McCanns.

[G-Unit]

You may like to read this thread;

http://miscarriageofjustice.co/index.php?topic=7137.0

[Robittybob1]

You may like to read this thread;

http://miscarriageofjustice.co/index.php?topic=7137.0

Just had a quick look at it and it seems more on focusing at what happened that day.  I was looking for the times we discussed the other day
Date of the archiving
Date of Goncalo's book and things like that (major events over the next ten years).

[G-Unit]

Just had a quick look at it and it seems more on focusing at what happened that day.  I was looking for the times we discussed the other day
Date of the archiving
Date of Goncalo's book and things like that (major events over the next ten years).

Oh, sorry. I see 'timeline' and go for the obvious one.

[Brietta]

Found this while browsing.

http://newsoutlines.blogspot.co.uk/2010/11/timeline-maddie-truth-of-lie.html

[G-Unit]

Amaral retires 30th June 2008
Archiving 21st July 2008
Book published 24th July 2008.

[Robittybob1]

Amaral retires 30th June 2008
Archiving 21st July 2008
Book published 24th July 2008.

"Amaral sold the copyright of the book to the publishers in March 2008, at which time he was still a serving officer. I do not understand how the SC court could keep referencing the final report which had not even been written at that time."  http://miscarriageofjustice.co/index.php?topic=8030.msg391932#msg391932

So if the copyright is sold one would imagine the text of the book has already been written and shared, therefore the defamation and damages start from then rather than the date the book gets published.

[G-Unit]

"Amaral sold the copyright of the book to the publishers in March 2008, at which time he was still a serving officer. I do not understand how the SC court could keep referencing the final report which had not even been written at that time."  http://miscarriageofjustice.co/index.php?topic=8030.msg391932#msg391932

So if the copyright is sold one would imagine the text of the book has already been written and shared, therefore the defamation and damages start from then rather than the date the book gets published.

Which is more or less why the first instance judge found in the McCanns' favour. The Appeal judges rejected her argument, however;

In effect, and independently of the reasons invoked by the appellant for the publication, it is hardly understandable that an employee, even more a retired one, would have to keep said duties of secrecy and reserve, thus being limited in the exercise of his right to an opinion, concerning the interpretation of facts that were already made public by the judiciary authority, and widely debated (in fact, largely by initiative of the intervenients themselves) in the national and international media.
http://miscarriageofjustice.co/index.php?topic=7153.0

[Alice Purjorick]

"Amaral sold the copyright of the book to the publishers in March 2008, at which time he was still a serving officer. I do not understand how the SC court could keep referencing the final report which had not even been written at that time."  http://miscarriageofjustice.co/index.php?topic=8030.msg391932#msg391932

So if the copyright is sold one would imagine the text of the book has already been written and shared, therefore the defamation and damages start from then rather than the date the book gets published.

1 So?
2 The significant date will be when the book entered the public domain ie the publishing date.

The two relevant dates are:
The date when  PJ case documents entered the publice domain.
The date when Sr Amaral's book entered the public domain.
Public domain = the state of belonging or being available to the public as a whole, especially through not being subject to copyright or other legal restrictions. ie if you ask for it you may have it subject to any rules surrounding that such as you may have pay for it or wait until someone has copied it.

[Robittybob1]

Which is more or less why the first instance judge found in the McCanns' favour. The Appeal judges rejected her argument, however;

In effect, and independently of the reasons invoked by the appellant for the publication, it is hardly understandable that an employee, even more a retired one, would have to keep said duties of secrecy and reserve, thus being limited in the exercise of his right to an opinion, concerning the interpretation of facts that were already made public by the judiciary authority, and widely debated (in fact, largely by initiative of the intervenients themselves) in the national and international media.
http://miscarriageofjustice.co/index.php?topic=7153.0

Well that just goes to show you how wrong the SC judges were doesn't it.  When Amaral wrote his book he was not retired, and hence he was under the rule "Duty of Reserve".    The fact were not made public at the time he wrote his book.   The statements about " concerning the interpretation of facts that were already made public by the judiciary authority, and widely debated (in fact, largely by initiative of the intervenients themselves) in the national and international media" were not evidenced in any way.

1 So?
2 The significant date will be when the book entered the public domain ie the publishing date.

The two relevant dates are:
The date when  PJ case documents entered the publice domain.
The date when Sr Amaral's book entered the public domain.
Public domain = the state of belonging or being available to the public as a whole, especially through not being subject to copyright or other legal restrictions. ie if you ask for it you may have it subject to any rules surrounding that such as you may have pay for it or wait until someone has copied it.

You can say "public domain" but it doesn't have to be in public for defamation to occur.

[Alice Purjorick]

Well that just goes to show you how wrong the SC judges were doesn't it.  When Amaral wrote his book he was not retired, and hence he was under the rule "Duty of Reserve".    The fact were not made public at the time he wrote his book.   The statements about " concerning the interpretation of facts that were already made public by the judiciary authority, and widely debated (in fact, largely by initiative of the intervenients themselves) in the national and international media" were not evidenced in any way.
You can say "public domain" but it doesn't have to be in public for defamation to occur.

You seem to be confusing "write" with "publish".
Anyway the case is now done , dusted and filed.

[Robittybob1]

You seem to be confusing "write" with "publish".
Anyway the case is now done , dusted and filed.

I really meant read what he wrote.  Probably no issue writing the book but a problem occurs when another reads it.
The case is not over yet.

[Alice Purjorick]

I really meant read what he wrote.  Probably no issue writing the book but a problem occurs when another reads it.
The case is not over yet.

I rather think you will discover the McCann v Amaral "libel case"  to be over.

[Robittybob1]

I rather think you will discover the McCann v Amaral "libel case"  to be over.

Are you predicting the McCanns wont go to the ECHR?
If the McCanns can get some victory there and some compensation from Portugal that might make them feel it is over.

[Robittybob1]

I really meant read what he wrote.  Probably no issue writing the book but a problem occurs when another reads it.
The case is not over yet.

When did the first person read the manuscript of the book Amaral wrote?  That is a date I want in my timeline.