Gonçalo Amaral confirms he will appeal the damages decision to higher Court.

[ferryman]

Everyone is entitled to justice. There appear to be those who believe justice is only for their mates and those of similar viewpoints to themselves. That is scary when logical extension is applied.

The Prosecutors very clearly stated that the McCanns are not guilty of anything culpable in respect of Madeleine's disappearance.

Amaral, in the last chapter of his book, accuses the McCanns of responsibility for Madeleine's death, covering up the 'fact' of her death and simulating 'abduction'

That is why the admirable judge Maria Emilia de Melo e Castro passed down the judgment she did.

[jassi]

What exactly do you think Judge Maria Emilia de Melo e Castro was dispensing in her Court?

She dispensed a verdict which is open to challenge in a higher court.
Whether or not it results in a different result remains to be seen.

[Alice Purjorick]

What exactly do you think Judge Maria Emilia de Melo e Castro was dispensing in her Court?

I didn't mention specifics in my post but now you bring it up:
The judge dispensed justice on a point of law as she saw it giving the defendants the right of appeal to a higher court. According to justice the defendants are allowed their day in court if the higher court deems there are grounds for appeal. One defendant has limited resources and folk are raising money to assist him have his day in court. What happens beyond that is yet to be revealed.

[Brietta]

She dispensed a verdict which is open to challenge in a higher court.
Whether or not it results in a different result remains to be seen.

It remains to be seen if the appeal is allowed as the judge was quite clear on the breaches of the law as applicable to a former police officer, which dictated her ruling.

If Goncalo Amaral's defence team are sanguine about that being overruled by another court and the appeal is allowed, contributors to the fund will have to continue to dig long and deep.

[Alice Purjorick]

It remains to be seen if the appeal is allowed as the judge was quite clear on the breaches of the law as applicable to a former police officer, which dictated her ruling.

If Goncalo Amaral's defence team are sanguine about that being overruled by another court and the appeal is allowed, contributors to the fund will have to continue to dig long and deep.

If they don't care why should you worry about it or even comment on it ?
I suppose you were up in arms that the Kray's defence was funded from legal aid taxation?

[jassi]

It remains to be seen if the appeal is allowed as the judge was quite clear on the breaches of the law as applicable to a former police officer, which dictated her ruling.

If Goncalo Amaral's defence team are sanguine about that being overruled by another court and the appeal is allowed, contributors to the fund will have to continue to dig long and deep.

That will be their choice. Do you have a problem with that?

[Brietta]

I didn't mention specifics in my post but now you bring it up:
The judge dispensed justice on a point of law as she saw it giving the defendants the right of appeal to a higher court. According to justice the defendants are allowed their day in court if the higher court deems there are grounds for appeal. One defendant has limited resources and folk are raising money to assist him have his day in court. What happens beyond that is yet to be revealed.

LOL ... the amount awarded to those he had wronged by abusing his position and the law of the land ... does not reflect the amount made from the sale of his book and his media career exploiting his failures in the case of a missing child.
What is left of his pension alone after his tax debt has been deducted as JP has said should afford him a very comfortable lifestyle if not the one to which he obviously aspires.

His debts of the past (totally incompatible with his role as an inspector in the PJ) and his future indebtedness are attributable solely to him ... not the McCanns ... not his creditors.

Human nature is a wonderful thing I must admit ... those who have pulled out all the stops to halt the investigation into the disappearance of an innocent little girl, at the moment using the expense as their banner ... are content to to pull out the stops to contribute to the appeal of a person who has exploited her case for personal financial  gain.

Sounds reasonable.

Now, should the present investigation manage to come up with a living, breathing Madeleine McCann ... would the same people contribute to her legal costs should she choose to sue Goncalo Amaral for consistently obstructing the search for her by convincing people she was dead?
Or would they continue to contribute to his defence fund?

[Brietta]

That will be their choice. Do you have a problem with that?

Absolutely none whatsoever.

[Brietta]

If they don't care why should you worry about it or even comment on it ?
I suppose you were up in arms that the Kray's defence was funded from legal aid taxation?

Not my problem ... although I must admit to almost hysterical amusement as I read the comments accompanying the begging bowl set up to assist Mr Amaral.

[jassi]

Not my problem ... although I must admit to almost hysterical amusement as I read the comments accompanying the begging bowl set up to assist Mr Amaral.

Doing well though, isn't it? up to 9 grand so far, so people are clearly happy to contribute.

[Carana]

I don't have a problem with Amaral pursuing the appeal process. That's his right. I don't have a problem with people contributing to his legal fund, either. Assuming that they are compos mentis, what they do with their spare cash is their own business.

What I do find odd is the Supreme Court ruling over the injunction. I wonder how much time they actually spent on analysing the facts on which they based their judgement?



In the book, we do not verify any reference to any facts that are not in that dispatch.

Where the author differs from the Prosecutors who have written the dispatch, is in the logical, police-work-related and investigative interpretation that he does of those facts.

In that aspect, we stand before the exercise of freedom of opinion, which is a domain in which the author is an expert, as he was a criminal investigator for 26 years.

Reasonable sceptics on here (if they're honest), would surely find that finding to be questionable? No?

[Alice Purjorick]

Doing well though, isn't it? up to 9 grand so far, so people are clearly happy to contribute.

And some folk are racked off that other folk have happily contributed nine grand so far and sneer at them for doing so.
"everybody's gotta have somebody to look down on someone to be better than anytime at all"
K.Kristofferson.

[jassi]

I don't have a problem with Amaral pursuing the appeal process. That's his right. I don't have a problem with people contributing to his legal fund, either. Assuming that they are compos mentis, what they do with their spare cash is their own business.

What I do find odd is the Supreme Court ruling over the injunction. I wonder how much time they actually spent on analysing the facts on which they based their judgement?



In the book, we do not verify any reference to any facts that are not in that dispatch.

Where the author differs from the Prosecutors who have written the dispatch, is in the logical, police-work-related and investigative interpretation that he does of those facts.

In that aspect, we stand before the exercise of freedom of opinion, which is a domain in which the author is an expert, as he was a criminal investigator for 26 years.

Reasonable sceptics on here (if they're honest), would surely find that finding to be questionable? No?

I don't pretend to understand Portuguese law or how it works so do't spend any time worrying about it 

[Carana]

And some folk are racked off that other folk have happily contributed nine grand so far and sneer at them for doing so.
"everybody's gotta have somebody to look down on someone to be better than anytime at all"
K.Kristofferson.

The same could be said of the "perfect parent" brigade. ;)

[Carana]

I don't pretend to understand Portuguese law or how it works so do't spend any time worrying about it

My point wasn't about the mysterious workings of Portuguese law.

It was about one of the statements in the SC's assessment upon which the ruling was based.



In the book, we do not verify any reference to any facts that are not in that dispatch.

Where the author differs from the Prosecutors who have written the dispatch, is in the logical, police-work-related and investigative interpretation that he does of those facts.

In that aspect, we stand before the exercise of freedom of opinion, which is a domain in which the author is an expert, as he was a criminal investigator for 26 years.

That is simply not correct. If they had only spent an hour or two flipping pages, then that could be a genuine general impression, but it certainly can't be the result of a close inspection.