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

[Brietta]

It may be indisputable now, (that a few people have made more than one donationand I have read all the posts today now)  it wasn't to me yesterday when I questioned, there is no need to get flummoxed and wonder about comprehensibility, I didn't take "umbrage" to any "facts"either as you put it, just to assertions, so unless you expect people to accept all postings as true, then expect to be questioned.

That's all dear.

I think the point some have taken umbrage to is the fact that once a certain point has been reached the momentum of the appeal relies on repeat donations from the same individuals.

I don't have the problem that some seem to have with that; but it does reveal that Mr Amaral's support has a limit of appx 1,000 vociferous individuals ... as has been seen in numerous petitions et al organised by his supporters' forums.

I doubt he even has half that number in Portugal as the revelations over the years of the lies and propaganda the public were fed sinks in. 
Nobody likes being taken for a fool ... and I think the level of the financial support or lack of it from his home turf might reflect that. 
We would be able to judge that better if the accounts were published, but I think it is becoming clearer with two collection points, one transparent the other shrouded in secrecy, that the bulk of Mr Amaral's financial support has always come from Britain and that is quite extraordinary.

I never take anything I see at face value ... but if I wish to challenge, I take the trouble to check out my facts first ... pity you do not adhere to the same courtesy.

[G-Unit]

I think the point some have taken umbrage to is the fact that once a certain point has been reached the momentum of the appeal relies on repeat donations from the same individuals.

I don't have the problem that some seem to have with that; but it does reveal that Mr Amaral's support has a limit of appx 1,000 vociferous individuals ... as has been seen in numerous petitions et al organised by his supporters' forums.

I doubt he even has half that number in Portugal as the revelations over the years of the lies and propaganda the public were fed sinks in. 
Nobody likes being taken for a fool ... and I think the level of the financial support or lack of it from his home turf might reflect that. 
We would be able to judge that better if the accounts were published, but I think it is becoming clearer with two collection points, one transparent the other shrouded in secrecy, that the bulk of Mr Amaral's financial support has always come from Britain and that is quite extraordinary.

I never take anything I see at face value ... but if I wish to challenge, I take the trouble to check out my facts first ... pity you do not adhere to the same courtesy.

I don't find it extraordinary that Amaral has British supporters, financial or otherwise. We don't know the extent of support he has in Portugal, so nothing can be gained by speculating. According to Shining there is little or  no support in Praia da Luz for the McCanns, at any rate. In Britain Amaral seems to enjoy more support than certain others, and perhaps people should consider why that is. Not everyone who thinks he has been badly used can be dismissed as stupid, surely?

[Montclair]

I truly don't think it will be that ... I think the judge has given no leeway at all to twist and turn ... the simplicity of the ruling has left no hostage to fortune.  She seems to be a pretty sharp lady, which is only to be expected.

What you call "simplicity" others call a "dog's dinner" of a ruling. You seem to overlook the fact that the verdict in February 2010 on the injunction carried more or less the same arguments as in this ruling and that verdict was overturned in a scathing "acórdão" by the Tribunal da Relação de Lisboa in October 2010.

[ferryman]

I don't find it extraordinary that Amaral has British supporters, financial or otherwise. We don't know the extent of support he has in Portugal, so nothing can be gained by speculating. According to Shining there is little or  no support in Praia da Luz for the McCanns, at any rate. In Britain Amaral seems to enjoy more support than certain others, and perhaps people should consider why that is. Not everyone who thinks he has been badly used can be dismissed as stupid, surely?

Granted that some just might be naive or misled.

[Brietta]

I don't find it extraordinary that Amaral has British supporters, financial or otherwise. We don't know the extent of support he has in Portugal, so nothing can be gained by speculating. According to Shining there is little or  no support in Praia da Luz for the McCanns, at any rate. In Britain Amaral seems to enjoy more support than certain others, and perhaps people should consider why that is. Not everyone who thinks he has been badly used can be dismissed as stupid, surely?

What people do with their money is their concern.

Whatever causes they wish to support is also their concern.

One wonders if the Portuguese people who are closer to events which have taken place in Portugal are as supportive, and one wonders now that we have an example of the source and the numbers contributing to Mr Amaral's appeal if it was not always so.

A very small rump can make a disproportionate clamour.

[Brietta]

What you call "simplicity" others call a "dog's dinner" of a ruling. You seem to overlook the fact that the verdict in February 2010 on the injunction carried more or less the same arguments as in this ruling and that verdict was overturned in a scathing "acórdão" by the Tribunal da Relação de Lisboa in October 2010.

Then we shall just have to content ourselves to see if the "dogs dinner" is allowed to be challenged by appeal ... I will be surprised if it is overturned should an appeal be allowed ... then I can see beauty in simplicity.

[stephen25000]

Then we shall just have to content ourselves to see if the "dogs dinner" is allowed to be challenged by appeal ... I will be surprised if it is overturned should an appeal be allowed ... then I can see beauty in simplicity.

Of course you would say that.

You back the mccanns 100%.


Now if the situation was reversed and rthe mccanns were making the appeal  &%+((£

[Brietta]

Of course you would say that.

You back the mccanns 100%.


Now if the situation was reversed and rthe mccanns were making the appeal  &%+((£

    Point is they are not having to ... the Portuguese Courts   %£&)**#  have found in their favour.

         In the real world ... that will not be forgotten. 

[G-Unit]

Granted that some just might be naive or misled.

So people who donate to Amaral's legal defence fund are either stupid, naive or mislead? I think you are underestimating the intelligence of the British.

[stephen25000]

So people who donate to Amaral's legal defence fund are either stupid, naive or mislead? I think you are underestimating the intelligence of the British.

ferryman forgot to omit, that's how some people view donations to the mccanns.

[Mr Gray]

So people who donate to Amaral's legal defence fund are either stupid, naive or mislead? I think you are underestimating the intelligence of the British.

I think misled and naïve are fair comments...and certainly on the whole the more intelligent can see through the lies and myths and support the mccanns

[G-Unit]

I think misled and naïve are fair comments...and certainly on the whole the more intelligent can see through the lies and myths and support the mccanns

Amaral's supporter's posts are definitely more intelligent than the posts of the few supporters I know of. 

[stephen25000]

I think misled and naïve are fair comments...and certainly on the whole the more intelligent can see through the lies and myths and support the mccanns

Wrong again dave.

and the the small band of mccann believers is diminishing. 

[ferryman]

The court, not Mr Amaral, will decide whether or not he can appeal.

ETA: If they decide he can't, the McCanns will be outright winners at first instance.

[Angelo222]

The court, not Mr Amaral, will decide whether or not he can appeal.

ETA: If they decide he can't, the McCanns will be outright winners at first instance.

There is far too much at stake here for him to be denied an appeal.  A judgement exceeding €500k is unprecedented in Portugal so that alone will allow one.