Former Portuguese detective Gonçalo Amaral wins appeal in damages trial.

[mercury]

I am far from convinced that taking the case to the echr is the right way to go.  This is essentially a civil matter and it is difficult to see what a successful appeal to the echr could bring by way of remedies.  But I am a pragmatist.

If the appeal to the Supreme Court is unsuccessful then Maybe the matter should rest there, stump up the costs and move on。taking a case to court is always a risk, and sometimes shit happens. 

In the words of WC fields - 'if at first you don't succeed try and try again.  Then give up - no point being a damn fool about it'

Hubris

[xtina]

so what was the fund really about .....  [ moderated ]



News from a UK tabloid that the parents of Madeleine McCann are banking on money donated to the Find Madeleine Fund to pursue former PJ policeman Gonçalo Amaral through the courts has caused a major stir on social media - not least because the couple vowed in 2007 that this could never happen.

A report in Sky News said nine years ago that trustees had announced that “Money from the Find Madeleine campaign will not be used to fund Kate and Gerry McCann’s legal costs"..

Sky went on to affirm that the McCanns “had already said they would not use the cash - more than £1 m - to pay any legal bills, even if the trust had let them”.

But according to Jerry Lawton of the Daily Star, this has all now changed.

Forging ahead with an expensive appeal against the decision by three Appellate judges in April to exonerate Amaral (click here), the McCanns are effectively going for broke, explains Lawton.

They have been ordered to pay both their own and Amaral’s court costs, he said, but this will clearly be suspended while their new “legal bid to silence the former detective” is considered by Portugal’s Supreme Court.

“If they lose, the legal bill could wipe out the Find Madeleine Fund set up using public donations to help the search for their daughter”, Lawton warns.

A friend of the couple confirmed the situation, saying the parents from Rothley have been left “exasperated”.

“If they lost a big legal bill to pay”, said the friend - confirming the money would have to “come from the fund set up to find Madeleine”.e there will be

- See more at: http://portugalresident.com/controversy-as-mccanns-%E2%80%9Cuse-find-madeleine-fund%E2%80%9D-to-pursue-former-pj-cop-through-courts#sthash.wToDU8A3.dpuf

[xtina]

.....but at least now we see what the last of the fund money ...will be spent on...


The couple's Portuguese lawyer Isabel Duarte told The Sun that the appeal was sent to the court last Monday.
A family source told the newspaper: 'We hope the appeal will be successful. If they lose there will be a big legal bill to pay which will come from the fund set up to find Madeleine.
'When Operation Grange ends Kate and Gerry will have to finance their own private investigation again. They will never give up searching for Madeleine and worry that the continuing legal action could wipe out money they has put aside for this.'


Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3616604/Kate-Gerry-McCann-lodge-new-legal-bid-silence-former-detective.html#ixzz4ADdLpjS3
Follow us: @MailOnline on Twitter | DailyMail on Facebook

[stephen25000]

.....but at least now we see what the last of the fund money ...will be spent on...


The couple's Portuguese lawyer Isabel Duarte told The Sun that the appeal was sent to the court last Monday.
A family source told the newspaper: 'We hope the appeal will be successful. If they lose there will be a big legal bill to pay which will come from the fund set up to find Madeleine.
'When Operation Grange ends Kate and Gerry will have to finance their own private investigation again. They will never give up searching for Madeleine and worry that the continuing legal action could wipe out money they has put aside for this.'


Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3616604/Kate-Gerry-McCann-lodge-new-legal-bid-silence-former-detective.html#ixzz4ADdLpjS3
Follow us: @MailOnline on Twitter | DailyMail on Facebook

..and when have the Mccanns used any of the money they have earned from working to pay for their 'expenses', legal or otherwise ?

Yet they seem quite happy to use other peoples donated money.

[stephen25000]

I am far from convinced that taking the case to the echr is the right way to go.  This is essentially a civil matter and it is difficult to see what a successful appeal to the echr could bring by way of remedies.  But I am a pragmatist.

If the appeal to the Supreme Court is unsuccessful then Maybe the matter should rest there, stump up the costs and move on。taking a case to court is always a risk, and sometimes shit happens. 

In the words of WC fields - 'if at first you don't succeed try and try again.  Then give up - no point being a damn fool about it'

On that post Jean-Pierre, I totally am in agreement with you.

[Benice]

As the McCanns and their friends have been ruled out as suspects or persons of interest - then it is perfectly reasonable to believe that Madeleine was removed from 5A (dead or alive)by a stranger. 

On the other hand  - in nine years not a scrap of  evidence that the McCanns or their friends were involved in Madeleine's removal from 5a has emerged.

Therefore to claim that the McCanns knew their daughter could not be found and that an abduction did not happen, as if those were proven facts, is libelous IMO.

[ShiningInLuz]

Please settle down.  Cut the silly comments.

[stephen25000]

As the McCanns and their friends have been ruled out as suspects or persons of interest - then it is perfectly reasonable to believe that Madeleine was removed from 5A (dead or alive)by a stranger. 

On the other hand  - in nine years not a scrap of  evidence that the McCanns or their friends were involved in Madeleine's removal from 5a has emerged.

Therefore to claim that the McCanns knew their daughter could not be found and that an abduction did not happen, as if those were proven facts, is libelous IMO.

Not everyone in SY agrees with you on that, in case you are not aware, hence the donations to Amaral.

How Madeleine disappeared from the apartment remains unproven.

Likewise, as to evidence of abduction, what is that exactly ?

[G-Unit]

As the McCanns and their friends have been ruled out as suspects or persons of interest - then it is perfectly reasonable to believe that Madeleine was removed from 5A (dead or alive)by a stranger. 

On the other hand  - in nine years not a scrap of  evidence that the McCanns or their friends were involved in Madeleine's removal from 5a has emerged.

Therefore to claim that the McCanns knew their daughter could not be found and that an abduction did not happen, as if those were proven facts, is libelous IMO.

Amaral's conclusions in his book match the conclusions of the PJ investigation as at September 2007. Full stop. It was his story of the investigation and it's conclusions during the time he worked on it. His conclusions were the same as the conclusions in the files as at September 2007.

Anything which has happened or been said since is irrelevant. It has to be judged in light of what the situation was then, not what it is now.

Having said that, of course, he could be right, they could be right, Mark Williams-Thomas could be right or they could all be wrong.

The legal question came down to whether his right to free speech is greater than the McCann's right to a good reputation.

The judge in the lower court seemed unable to settle this matter without referring to his former job. It was only by saying that his situation as an ex policeman prevented him from expressing his opinion that she felt able to rule in favour of the McCanns. The inference being that had he not been an ex policeman she would have reached a different conclusion.

The Appeal judges ruled in favour of Amaral because they rejected the lower judge's conclusion that his situation as an ex policeman affected his right to speak freely.

If the Supreme Court rules on points of law only they will decide between the two decisions above. The question being are there legal constraints affecting ex policemen's rights to speak freely or not?

I don't know if new legal questions can be raised on appeal or not, but I don't think the proved and unproved facts will be reconsidered.

[Mr Gray]

Amaral's conclusions in his book match the conclusions of the PJ investigation as at September 2007. Full stop. It was his story of the investigation and it's conclusions during the time he worked on it. His conclusions were the same as the conclusions in the files as at September 2007.

Anything which has happened or been said since is irrelevant. It has to be judged in light of what the situation was then, not what it is now.

Having said that, of course, he could be right, they could be right, Mark Williams-Thomas could be right or they could all be wrong.

The legal question came down to whether his right to free speech is greater than the McCann's right to a good reputation.

The judge in the lower court seemed unable to settle this matter without referring to his former job. It was only by saying that his situation as an ex policeman prevented him from expressing his opinion that she felt able to rule in favour of the McCanns. The inference being that had he not been an ex policeman she would have reached a different conclusion.

The Appeal judges ruled in favour of Amaral because they rejected the lower judge's conclusion that his situation as an ex policeman affected his right to speak freely.

If the Supreme Court rules on points of law only they will decide between the two decisions above. The question being are there legal constraints affecting ex policemen's rights to speak freely or not?

I don't know if new legal questions can be raised on appeal or not, but I don't think the proved and unproved facts will be reconsidered.

amaral could not be right
calpol is not a sedative
no child can die from a fall off a sofa

[Alice Purjorick]

..and when have the Mccanns used any of the money they have earned from working to pay for their 'expenses', legal or otherwise ?

Yet they seem quite happy to use other peoples donated money.

In the fullness of time their minds may be made up for them about whether or not their own money is used.

[Benice]

Amaral's conclusions in his book match the conclusions of the PJ investigation as at September 2007. Full stop. It was his story of the investigation and it's conclusions during the time he worked on it. His conclusions were the same as the conclusions in the files as at September 2007.

Anything which has happened or been said since is irrelevant. It has to be judged in light of what the situation was then, not what it is now.

Having said that, of course, he could be right, they could be right, Mark Williams-Thomas could be right or they could all be wrong.

The legal question came down to whether his right to free speech is greater than the McCann's right to a good reputation.

The judge in the lower court seemed unable to settle this matter without referring to his former job. It was only by saying that his situation as an ex policeman prevented him from expressing his opinion that she felt able to rule in favour of the McCanns. The inference being that had he not been an ex policeman she would have reached a different conclusion.

The Appeal judges ruled in favour of Amaral because they rejected the lower judge's conclusion that his situation as an ex policeman affected his right to speak freely.

If the Supreme Court rules on points of law only they will decide between the two decisions above. The question being are there legal constraints affecting ex policemen's rights to speak freely or not?

I don't know if new legal questions can be raised on appeal or not, but I don't think the proved and unproved facts will be reconsidered.

What about the right to be presumed innocent until proved guilty?   It seems to me that Amaral rode roughshod over that right in his books and TV progs by openly claiming that the McCanns were guilty.   Something which the court has ignored IMO.

I've long since given up trying to make sense of the PT legal system - as it doesn't appear to acknowledge that fundamental right of all citizens in a democracy to be treated as innocent untill proven guilty before anything else, including free speech.

It seems to me that in PT Free Speech is in danger of being used as an excuse for behaviour that should not be deemed to be acceptable in a fair society.

AIMHO

Must go out now.

[G-Unit]

What about the right to be presumed innocent until proved guilty?   It seems to me that Amaral rode roughshod over that right in his books and TV progs by openly claiming that the McCanns were guilty.   Something which the court has ignored IMO.

I've long since given up trying to make sense of the PT legal system - as it doesn't appear to acknowledge that fundamental right of all citizens in a democracy to be treated as innocent untill proven guilty before anything else, including free speech.

It seems to me that in PT Free Speech is in danger of being used as an excuse for behaviour that should not be deemed to be acceptable in a fair society.

AIMHO

Must go out now.

How can all citizens be presumed innocent until proved guilty? As soon as the police develop suspicions about someone they've breached that human right, haven't they? Not to mention interviewing and arresting them. The police might not speak out and say we think they're guilty, but it's quite clear by their actions. It was quite clear when the investigation declared the McCanns arguidos what the PJ were thinking.

[G-Unit]

The part I underline is simply not true.

According to Amaral Harrison switched the enquiry into one for a little girl assumed dead, which is simply not true.

Harrison was handed a brief, by the PJ, to investigate that Madeleine had been murdered and worked to it.

Amaral mangles and misrepresents the work of Harrison and (I've said all this before, but I'll repeat it) lies that he corrected and contradicted Stuart Prior on interpretation of the forensic results, or that Stuart Prior rang the PJ to berate them on the subject of the PJ's powers of arrest.

Certainly by English libel law (don't know about Portuguese) Amaral libels the McCanns by saying (in an interview) no one talked about murder.  That was a lie that broached the idea of murder (to buttressed Amaral's own theory, entirely unique to him, and perhaps Almeida, that the McCanns killed Madeleine involuntarily with an overodose of Calpol, then hid her body and orchestrated a cover-up).

No one else thought that.

I think the basis of this, latest, ruling is that Amaral (is not) being held accountable for the leaks on his watch, released his book for sale after he quit the PJ, and therefore inhabits a libel-free zone brought about by the co-emergence of Kate's book.

Anything goes.

Including the lies that lower reputation copiously served up in Amaral's book.

Unfortunately ....

The part you underlined is what the investigation said, ferryman, whether you agree or not;

From everything that was exposed from the AUTOS, we conclude that:

A) The minor Madeleine McCann died in the apartment 5A of the Ocean Club resort, on the night of May 3rd of 2007;

B) It was performed a simulation of kidnapping;

C) In order to avoid the death [alarm] of the minor before 22H00, it was created a situation of the children's surveillance by the McCann while the children slept;

D) Kate McCann and Gerald McCann are involved in the occultation of the cadaver of their child Madeleine McCann;

E) At this moment, there seems that there aren't strong indicia that the death of the minor didn't happen due to a tragic accident;

F) From what was obtained until now, everything points out that the McCann, as self-defence, didn't want to deliver immediately and voluntarily the cadaver, existing a strong possibility that the same was transported from the initial place of deposition. This situation is susceptible to raise questions about the circumstances under which the death of the minor occurred.
http://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/PJ/TAVARES_ALMEIDA.htm
10th Sept 2007

[Brietta]

Is there any good reason why we should be taking cognisance of an interim report full of the inaccurate conclusions of the team which botched the investigation into Madeleine McCann's disappearance from a convicted torturer?   http://miscarriageofjustice.co/index.php?topic=2140.0

There is a final report containing the conclusion of a competent PJ team that neither of the Drs McCann or Mr Murat had any locus in whatever it was that happened to Madeleine.

I would consider that the continued disingenuous smearing of Madeleine's parents quoting out of date and discounted information while ignoring the more up to date report amounts to libelling those parents ... if not in Portugal, most certainly in Britain.