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

[Carana]

Damages? The McCanns suffered no damages from that book as confirmed by the Tribunal da Relação de Lisboa in October 2010! Damages is when a husband and son lose their wife and mother, who was beaten to death in her office by the ex-husband of her client, who did not want to pay alimony. The two received € 160.000,-- as compensation. So let me tell you that € 500.000,-- is obscene for two parents who neglected and ignored their children during the entire holiday and who are ultimately responsible for what happened, not only to their daughter but to others.

The story of the family of the ex-husband is sad indeed.

However, this is a different case, based - presumably - on different grounds.

An initial question, however: Do you have a link to the judgement of that case?

[Carana]

The amount is in no way justified. Furthermore, the judge deemed that Gonçalo Amaral did not have the right to write the book as a retired policeman and awarded the parents the proceeds from the book as punishment and in no way as damages.

Could you clarify how you came to that conclusion, Montclair?

[Carana]

The judge stated that his book was based on the police files and was factual!

This has already been explained FGS! The judge of the first instance will consider his appeal and if she maintains her verdict (she does have the possibility of changing it), she then sends the appeal on to the Tribunal da Relação. She cannot stop the procedure if she doesn't agree with the appellant's arguments.

That's not exactly what she said.

She said that the "facts" in the book were IN THE MAIN contained within the files (i.e. not all). She passed no judgement as to whether the "facts" were truthful or not - just that many of the "facts" did indeed appear in the "partial" files, but that establishing the truthfulness was beyond her remit.

Logically, if someone chooses to select only certain aspects of WWII, clearly a biased version of events could present how Hitler won the war. If you really choose only selected documents, I expect that it's quite feasible to make readers believe that the Holocaust never happened - it was all just unpleasant propaganda to discredit the Führer.

[Montclair]

That's not exactly what she said.

She said that the "facts" in the book were IN THE MAIN contained within the files (i.e. not all). She passed no judgement as to whether the "facts" were truthful or not - just that many of the "facts" did indeed appear in the "partial" files, but that establishing the truthfulness was beyond her remit.

Logically, if someone chooses to select only certain aspects of WWII, clearly a biased version of events could present how Hitler won the war. If you really choose only selected documents, I expect that it's quite feasible to make readers believe that the Holocaust never happened - it was all just unpleasant propaganda to discredit the Führer.

The facts are in the files and they are facts, Gonçalo Amaral did not invent "facts". What the judge said was that it was not within her remit to investigate the disappearance.

[Mr Gray]

The facts are in the files and they are facts, Gonçalo Amaral did not invent "facts". What the judge said was that it was not within her remit to investigate the disappearance.

amaral based his book on the files no problem...then he added his own...big problem .....where in the files does it say there is proof maddie died in the apartment

[Montclair]

amaral based his book on the files no problem...then he added his own...big problem .....where in the files does it say there is proof maddie died in the apartment

The problem is that you people say that Gonçalo Amaral has said or written things that he hasn't done. He never said in his book that there was proof that Madeleine died in the apartment. He only repeated the preliminary report by Tavares de Almeida and what the police thought when the dogs alerted. In the book he describes the investigation without giving his personal opinion as to what happened.

[stephen25000]

amaral based his book on the files no problem...then he added his own...big problem .....where in the files does it say there is proof maddie died in the apartment

Accidental death in the apartment has not been disproved.

[Mr Gray]

I don't see how amaral can ask for the damages to be reduced without admitting liability...it's like getting sentenced to 10 years for a crime....then saying that's bit much what about 5...by the way I'm innocent
 *&*%£

[Mr Gray]

The problem is that you people say that Gonçalo Amaral has said or written things that he hasn't done. He never said in his book that there was proof that Madeleine died in the apartment. He only repeated the preliminary report by Tavares de Almeida and what the police thought when the dogs alerted. In the book he describes the investigation without giving his personal opinion as to what happened.

he said on the video he could prove Maddie died in the apartment

[Mr Gray]

The problem is that you people say that Gonçalo Amaral has said or written things that he hasn't done. He never said in his book that there was proof that Madeleine died in the apartment. He only repeated the preliminary report by Tavares de Almeida and what the police thought when the dogs alerted. In the book he describes the investigation without giving his personal opinion as to what happened.

could you tell me where in the files it says anything like this...

From then on, we are sure that, at a given moment, there was a body in apartment 5A. We now have to interview firemen, medical services personnel, previous tenants and employees of the Ocean Club to make sure that no death has taken place in this accommodation, which they confirm. So, we can conclude that the odour discovered is certainly that of Madeleine Beth McCann. (TOTL)
#

plus...Grime has not said there has been a body in the apartment...but amaral has

[Carana]

The facts are in the files and they are facts, Gonçalo Amaral did not invent "facts". What the judge said was that it was not within her remit to investigate the disappearance.

I'd agree that she said that investigating the truthfulness of the "facts" was not the subject-matter of the trial.

Was CdaM justified in asserting that RM had had sex with a cat and tortured various other animals as well? There was a statement to that effect in the files, but it doesn't mean that it was true.

I could have stated (hypothetically) that you were a spy for an enemy power intent on clearing the Algarve of the tourist industry to make way for a North Korean intercontinental missile launchpad... if I had made a statement to that effect, it wouldn't make it "true", either, would it?

She stated that for "the main part" the facts that were the basis could be found in the files. Not that ALL were.

There are several "facts" that simply are not in the accessible files. The only thing that would be "true" is that I'd made a statement to that effect.

And, if an author had decided to only discuss the possibility of a (hypothetical) North Korean missile launchpad, even when that possibility later appeared to be highly unlikely, what then? Is that version the "truth"?

[Jean-Pierre]

The problem is that you people say that Gonçalo Amaral has said or written things that he hasn't done. He never said in his book that there was proof that Madeleine died in the apartment. He only repeated the preliminary report by Tavares de Almeida and what the police thought when the dogs alerted. In the book he describes the investigation without giving his personal opinion as to what happened.

He wrote the book making great play that the author was the former coordinator in the case, and using his former job to bolster his credibility.

He said in his book and the documentary that the McCanns were guilty of certain criminal offences.

This breached their rights under the Portuguese constitution, and breached his duty to keep his opinions to himself, as a former policeman.

The judge really had no choice but to find for the McCanns.

the level of damages was set at approximately the level of profit he made from the book, upholding the principle that one should not profit from ones "crimes".

In my opinion he is going to struggle to find credible grounds for an appeal, but that is a matter for the court to decide.

 

[Carana]

The facts are in the files and they are facts, Gonçalo Amaral did not invent "facts". What the judge said was that it was not within her remit to investigate the disappearance.

He states certain things as facts that are most certainly not in the accessible files. And his "understanding" of some of the facts that are in them is beyond bewildering.

[Carana]

The problem is that you people say that Gonçalo Amaral has said or written things that he hasn't done. He never said in his book that there was proof that Madeleine died in the apartment. He only repeated the preliminary report by Tavares de Almeida and what the police thought when the dogs alerted. In the book he describes the investigation without giving his personal opinion as to what happened.

What about in his docu drama?


My name is Goncalo Amaral and I was a police investigator for the Judiciary Police for 27 years. I co-ordinated the investigation of the disappearance of Madeleine McCann on the 3rd of May 2007. During the next 50 minutes I will PROVE that the child was not abducted and that she died in the holiday apartment in Praia da Luz. Discover all the truth about what happened that day. A death that many want to cover up.

[Alfred R Jones]

What about in his docu drama?


My name is Goncalo Amaral and I was a police investigator for the Judiciary Police for 27 years. I co-ordinated the investigation of the disappearance of Madeleine McCann on the 3rd of May 2007. During the next 50 minutes I will PROVE that the child was not abducted and that she died in the holiday apartment in Praia da Luz. Discover all the truth about what happened that day. A death that many want to cover up.

How did he actually go on to "prove" this?