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

[Brietta]

The judge has given a verdict which is open to appeal. I have no quibble with that at all. It seems you and your cohorts do, judging by the ceaseless invective. If it sinks the gentleman because that is the law fair dos I doubt I will lose any sleep or celebrate what ever the outcome.
Lets narrow it down even further and see if you can answer the question the question you are avoiding.
What effect will anything that happens to Dr Amaral have on finding the perpetrators of the crime (if one has been committed) and discovering the fate of Madeleine McCann?
You seem to be interested merely in making less than complimentary remarks about Dr Amaral rather than anything else despite your protestations to the contrary.

I think you mistake me.

Mr Amaral has had a considerable award made against him in a Portuguese Court ~ he is not happy about this and wishes to appeal the Judge's decision.

I have no problem with that.

I have no problem with those who wish to donate financial aid to assist that appeal.

If you can pinpoint a word which I have typed about Mr Amaral which is not  documented and true you may have a complaint. 
That his conduct is such that the truth is considered by you "less than complimentary" may owe more to what he has done, rather than my telling of it.

I am interested in what grounds he may have to appeal the judge's decision; I am interested in whether or not the appeal will be allowed; I am interested in what is allowed to be said during the appeal process and who is allowed to say it.

[pegasus]

If Mr Amaral wins the appeal it does not solve the case.
Instead his theory needs some serious reworking to remove some incorrect deductions.
Some of them are so simple that a child could solve them, here's just one example, by analogy
"a very accurate police dog detects a suspicious substance on X's clothing, but X truthfully denies ever handling of or knowledge of that substance, solve it".
A piece of cake for a child, because they can see that there are two different states for clothes.
But the PJ and LP team, and forum peeps, saw only one state and were blind to the other. Illogical is too polite a word to use, because someone was incorrectly made an official suspect based in large part on exactly this error of thinking.

[ferryman]

The judgment ruling that Amaral has libelled the McCanns was handed down on 28 April.

It's now 17th May.

Amaral has had half his allotted time of 40 days to lodge his appeal.

By my reckoning he's got till roughly the first week in June to get his appeal in.

[stephen25000]

The judgment ruling that Amaral has libelled the McCanns was handed down on 28 April.

It's now 17th May.

Amaral has had half his allotted time of 40 days to lodge his appeal.

By my reckoning he's got till roughly the first week in June to get his appeal in.

Don't worry ferryman.

[Jean-Pierre]

Don't worry ferryman.

I don't think anyone is worrying Stephen.

Just wondering which reason Amaral will choose this time to try to spin out the time.   

[Carana]

The judgment ruling that Amaral has libelled the McCanns was handed down on 28 April.

It's now 17th May.

Amaral has had half his allotted time of 40 days to lodge his appeal.

By my reckoning he's got till roughly the first week in June to get his appeal in.

Are the days calendar days or working days? If they are working days, he has around two months.

[Montclair]

The judgment ruling that Amaral has libelled the McCanns was handed down on 28 April.

It's now 17th May.

Amaral has had half his allotted time of 40 days to lodge his appeal.

By my reckoning he's got till roughly the first week in June to get his appeal in.

The ruling never stated that Gonçalo Amaral had libelled the McCanns. Get it straight.

[ferryman]

The ruling never stated that Gonçalo Amaral had libelled the McCanns. Get it straight.

I think I have.

I think you need to.

[Alfred R Jones]

The judgment ruling that Amaral has libelled the McCanns was handed down on 28 April.

It's now 17th May.

Amaral has had half his allotted time of 40 days to lodge his appeal.

By my reckoning he's got till roughly the first week in June to get his appeal in.

Going on his previous track record of spinning things out for as long as possible he'll probably leave it until the last minute.  After all, there's no real hurry is there?

[Carana]

The ruling never stated that Gonçalo Amaral had libelled the McCanns. Get it straight.

II . The conflict in this case between freedom of expression and the right to good name and reputation of the claimants.

 MATTERS TO BE DECIDED

In view of the requests made, the decision on the merits essentially depends on the answer to the following question :

- Are the book written by the defendant Goncalo Amaral, the adaptation of this book for the audiovisual documentary and the interview given by the same defendant illicit /anti-juridical according to article 484° of the Civil Procedure Code ? *

In response attempt will travel the following discussion levels :

I. the content of the book, the documentary and the interview. 

II . The conflict in this case between freedom of expression and the right to good name and reputation of the claimants.

If the conclusion is unlawfulness, it will matter to establish :
 
Page 32

III. If damages have been proven that are in a causal relationship with the unlawful acts and, if so , what is the amount with which they should be compensated.

IV. If the claims made by the plaintiffs in the appended action are appropriate for removing the effects of the committed crimes.

Finally it will be important to close the discussion with analyses of the procedural conducts of the parties in the light of the premises of bad faith litigation.

* "... of the Civil Procedure Code"? Shouldn't that be the Civil Code? That's not a mistake by Anne G, it's in the original.


ARTIGO 484º

(Ofensa do crédito ou do bom nome)


Quem afirmar ou difundir um facto capaz de prejudicar o crédito ou o bom nome de qualquer pessoa, singular ou colectiva, responde pelos danos causados.

[Jean-Pierre]

An Appellate Court won't tolerate such nonsense, that's the difference.

You know that, and I know that, but I wonder if Amaral knows it.

He has used all of the excuses above to delay proceedings in the past. 

For a man supposedly confident of a favourable eventual outcome, with an "ace up his sleeve" and plans to sue the McCanns and friends in the UK, he has not shown much urgency in matters. 

[Miss Taken Identity]

McCanns 'won' on a technicality, hardly justification for claiming they have in any way been vindicated! OR absolved in Maddies disappearance. I also wonder if the Jiudge made the claim so high in order that Amaral could appeal.

[Brietta]

McCanns 'won' on a technicality, hardly justification for claiming they have in any way been vindicated! OR absolved in Maddies disappearance. I also wonder if the Jiudge made the claim so high in order that Amaral could appeal.

I think the McCanns won on far more than a technicality ... I thought the counts on which the Judge made her ruling were perfectly clear ... if it pleases you to think otherwise that is your prerogative.

I think the Judge may have considered the amount awarded in damages was commensurate with the damage done.

[Carana]

McCanns 'won' on a technicality, hardly justification for claiming they have in any way been vindicated! OR absolved in Maddies disappearance. I also wonder if the Jiudge made the claim so high in order that Amaral could appeal.

What "technicality" are you referring to?

[Miss Taken Identity]

What "technicality" are you referring to?

Oh you know...

Anyway  how did that libel trial go? well they never got a penny for liable! or did the judge declare the book the cause of their 'suffering' or the search to be impeded.