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

[Carana]

The judgement runs to over fifty pages, much of which refers to previous European Court decisions in respect of human rights.  Ultimately, the honourable Lady Judge had to take a stand but in the end it was her decision and interpretation of the evidence which was submitted to and given in the Court.

A higher Court could very well take a different view as was seen already in the original book ban.

Always possible.

I did find that judgement odd when it said that

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.

With all due respect to the honourable Supreme Court judges, I'm not convinced that they actually compared the book to the files in detail... as if they had, they may have noticed that not all the "facts" are recorded in the files. I'm not convinced, either, that they considered his experience in the field of missing children... of which there appears to be only one other. 

If the ruling is based on an incorrect appreciation of facts, is that ruling absolute?

[John]

Always possible.

I did find that judgement odd when it said that

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.

With all due respect to the honourable Supreme Court judges, I'm not convinced that they actually compared the book to the files in detail... as if they had, they may have noticed that not all the "facts" are recorded in the files. I'm not convinced, either, that they considered his experience in the field of missing children... of which there appears to be only one other. 

If the ruling is based on an incorrect appreciation of facts, is that ruling absolute?

Isn't that why there is an option to appeal?

[Carana]

Isn't that why there is an option to appeal?

My comment was about the Supreme Court ruling concerning the injunction.

[John]

My comment was about the Supreme Court ruling concerning the injunction.

They might have something similar to a judicial review in Portugal.

[Alice Purjorick]

Nope I've tried to figure out an alternative meaning to "reach for the Bolly" other than celebrate but I have failed.  Bolly is champagne, champagne is traditionally drank at times of celebration, so what is my little brain missing here?

Hint: you have omitted a word above that was in your previous post. Try again 

[Alfred R Jones]

[/b]

I am not beating about the bush. I was quite clear in what I said in the first instance, you then inserted a word I had used to change the sense then started arguing about that. The word is still missing above. If you can't work it out so be it.

OK - from the top.

You said:

"If the appeal court upholds the judgment then it's time to reach for the Bolly".

You then claimed that "reaching for the Bolly" did not mean "to celebrate a success"

Therefore please explain what you meant by "reaching for the Bolly".

Thanks in anticipation.

[ferryman]

The judgement runs to over fifty pages, much of which refers to previous European Court decisions in respect of human rights.  Ultimately, the honourable Lady Judge had to take a stand but in the end it was her decision and interpretation of the evidence which was submitted to and given in the Court.

A higher Court could very well take a different view as was seen already in the original book ban. That said, I would have thought that a lower Court overturning a previous ruling by the Supreme Court could in itself be grounds for appeal.

I don't believe that a lower court did.

I think the dispute over the injunction was a judgment on the right of free speech versus the right of citizens to a good name, with the highest appeal (in that dispute) upholding Amaral's right to free speech.

The libel trial was something else.

[Montclair]

The judge confirmed that the book was factual and based on the police files as did the Tribunal de Relação in October 2010.

[Alice Purjorick]

OK - from the top.

You said:

"If the appeal court upholds the judgment then it's time to reach for the Bolly".

You then claimed that "reaching for the Bolly" did not mean "to celebrate a success"

Therefore please explain what you meant by "reaching for the Bolly".

Thanks in anticipation.

OK I meant: "let's have a brew it's all over".
But then you realised that in the first place.

[ferryman]

The judge confirmed that the book was factual and based on the police files as did the Tribunal de Relação in October 2010.

Not read that part of the learned judge's judgement.

But do you really believe (for example) that Amaral contradicted and corrected Prior on interpretation of the forensic results?

Or that Prior then rang the FSS to berate them on the PJ's powers of arrest?

Do you still think that the woman at the trial who said most of Amaral's book was made up was being ironic?

[Alfred R Jones]

OK I meant: "let's have a brew it's all over".
But then you realised that in the first place.

Er...I did?  So, in your funny old world "reaching for the Bolly" means let's have a cup of tea, it's all over".  Right, I getcha now.   

I'm just off to "reach for the Bolly"  might have a Rich Tea to dunk into it -  back in a mo'...

[Alice Purjorick]

do you not realise amaral lied in his book...that should answer your question

OK lets take it I am as thick as two short planks that lets me out of the equation.
The question remains how did you arrive at "most intelligent people" ?
You must have have measured it or assessed it somehow in order to be able to make the statement. I am just asking how, or did you pluck a number out of the air and multiply it by the number the number of the next bus to pass?
As you seem unable to answer one presumes the latter.

[Alfred R Jones]

The UK MSM have regularly reported on the Madeleine mcCann case, even when there is very little new to report. How strange that they are not reporting on the support for Goncalo Amaral.

Within 11 days, the British fighting fund set up to help the former policeman dubbed by UK media as the “Maddie Lie Cop” has reached over €13,000......
..the instigator of the British appeal fund raising money for Amaral’s appeal tells us she has been approached by a number of UK newspapers, but none of them are keen to write about her effort until it reaches the €25,000 target.

As this latest example of “people-power” righting what they see is a wrong plays out, the mainstream British media is making much of the so-called string of burglaries that appears to have taken place on the resort from which Madeleine went missing just over eight years ago. It’s a line that has surfaced every now and then in this infinite mystery and which many query, as if there truly had been a spate of attacks on children in the Algarve, the feeling is that local and national media would have heard about them. As a source told us this week, what were originally described as “five or six cases, then morphed into over a dozen and suddenly exploded into 30 cases or so, if we are to believe the UK media”.

http://portugalresident.com/maddie-cop%E2%80%99s-legal-fund-%E2%80%9Cwell-on-the-way%E2%80%9D-to-the-%E2%82%AC25000-target

RE: The bit in bold above - why would Leanne Baulch have already been approached by journalists who were NOT interested in covering the story until it reached £25k - can you explain the sense of that?

"Hello Leanne - I'm a journalist with the Sun and I'm just contacting you to let you knowI'm not interested in writing about your fund until it reaches £25k". 

Yeah, as any intelligent person can see, that makes no sense at all!

[Carana]

The judge confirmed that the book was factual and based on the police files as did the Tribunal de Relação in October 2010.

Erm... that's not exactly what she said, is it, Montclair?

[G-Unit]

RE: The bit in bold above - why would Leanne Baulch have already been approached by journalists who were NOT interested in covering the story until it reached £25k - can you explain the sense of that?

"Hello Leanne - I'm a journalist with the Sun and I'm just contacting you to let you knowI'm not interested in writing about your fund until it reaches £25k". 

Yeah, as any intelligent person can see, that makes no sense at all!

Ow er, do I see another intelligent person! Perhaps the Media were after something else? Interesting that no-one's commented on the 'so-called burglaries' which no-one in the Algarve or even in Portugal has heard of?