The Supreme Court in Portugal will shortly decide the McCann v Amaral damages case.

[ferryman]

Interesting that none of Amaral's lawyers invoked this defence on Amaral's behalf the judge that found in favour of him invoked.

Presumably the first-instance judge must have been aware of that defence?

[Brietta]

According to Shining, every calumny uttered against Madeleine's parents by Goncalo Amaral is widely believed in Portugal.

In the part of the world from which Madeleine disappeared and where she may very well be living ... no-one is looking for her because they believe the book, the documentary all backed up by the celebrity TV appearances ... and that is considered appropriate?

[slartibartfast]

According to Shining, every calumny uttered against Madeleine's parents by Goncalo Amaral is widely believed in Portugal.

In the part of the world from which Madeleine disappeared and where she may very well be living ... no-one is looking for her because they believe the book, the documentary all backed up by the celebrity TV appearances ... and that is considered appropriate?

Which was of course discounted by the court.

[Benice]

IIRC the court deemed that it was not proven that the book damaged the search.  Just as the McCanns had no way of quantifying the effects of the book, whatever they were,   - the court had the same problem themselves.

The only way that could be established was to question every person who bought and read the book.   Obviously that was an impossible task.

AIMHO

[ferryman]

IIRC the court deemed that it was not proven that the book damaged the search.  Just as the McCanns had no way of quantifying the effects of the book, whatever they were,   - the court had the same problem themselves.

The only way that could be established was to question every person who bought and read the book.   Obviously that was an impossible task.

AIMHO

Not quite (if you are referring to the first-instance judgement)?

She said there was no evidence the book damaged the investigation.

[ferryman]

According to Shining, every calumny uttered against Madeleine's parents by Goncalo Amaral is widely believed in Portugal.

In the part of the world from which Madeleine disappeared and where she may very well be living ... no-one is looking for her because they believe the book, the documentary all backed up by the celebrity TV appearances ... and that is considered appropriate?

Depressing, isn't it?

[G-Unit]

Not quite (if you are referring to the first-instance judgement)?

She said there was no evidence the book damaged the investigation.

What she actually said was that those making the allegation had failed to prove it;

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 McCann?

       Not proved.

http://miscarriageofjustice.co/index.php?topic=5931.0

[G-Unit]

The appeal is 4th on the list today, so a result should be announced this week.

http://www.stj.pt/ficheiros/tabelas/marcadas/31-01-17-1.pdf

[jassi]

Jeez, how the legal profession drag these things out. Still, better than having a quick, but ill-considered verdict.

[faithlilly]

Jeez, how the legal profession drag these things out. Still, better than having a quick, but ill-considered verdict.

Indeed jassi. Hopefully tomorrow justice at last will prevail and GA will be able to get on with his life.

[xtina]

 it's not a hearing, the STJ judges are just examining the McCann's request for review of the Appeal Court decision. They can totally or partly grant a review or reject it or even defer their decision for further analysis. They basically have to decide whether the interpretation of the law has been appropriate. They are not judging the matter itself.


it could also be today


lets hope its regected ......this is as far as maddie will get to justice ....and G A

[stephen25000]

it's not a hearing, the STJ judges are just examining the McCann's request for review of the Appeal Court decision. They can totally or partly grant a review or reject it or even defer their decision for further analysis. They basically have to decide whether the interpretation of the law has been appropriate. They are not judging the matter itself.


it could also be today


lets hope its regected ......this is as far as maddie will get to justice ....and G A

Thanks Xtina, that has cleared things up.

[jassi]

it's not a hearing, the STJ judges are just examining the McCann's request for review of the Appeal Court decision. They can totally or partly grant a review or reject it or even defer their decision for further analysis. They basically have to decide whether the interpretation of the law has been appropriate. They are not judging the matter itself.


it could also be today


lets hope its regected ......this is as far as maddie will get to justice ....and G A

Presumably if they reject it, then there is nothing to judge.

[John]

There is a new thread for the Supreme Court decision in McCanns v Gonçalo Amaral.

http://miscarriageofjustice.co/index.php?topic=7920.msg379678#msg379678

[ShiningInLuz]

Note the OP was 6 Sep 2016.  Now on 31 Jan 2017, the Supreme Court has declined to hear the McCann appeal.

I dare say that gap could classed as 'shortly' in Portugal.