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

[pathfinder73]

http://www.gofundme.com/Legal-DefencePJGA

[Alfred R Jones]

So "a very large group" of British policeman have donated £1000 to Ammy's* Fund have they?

Is that 1000 policemen donating £1 each then?

*That was especially for Alice.

[stephen25000]

Appeal to be applied for

And approved or denied.

If denied, the McCanns will be outright winners at first instance.

We'll see ...

Indeed we will.

Let's not forget the mccanns could end up with zip. *&*%£

[stephen25000]

So "a very large group" of British policeman have donated £1000 to Ammy's* Fund have they?

Is that 1000 policemen donating £1 each then?

*That was especially for Alice.

So what about the large number of police who believe and support the mccanns ? *&*%£

[Montclair]

Appeal to be applied for

And approved or denied.

If denied, the McCanns will be outright winners at first instance.

We'll see ...

How many times do we have to explain how appeals work before you understand? The appeal goes to the first instance judge. If she doesn't accept the arguments, she then sends it up to the appeals court. There is no way that the appeal can stop in the first instance if the appellant fulfills the formalities of filing within the time limit, paying the respective court costs, being the legitimate person to appeal and the case falling under the types which can be appealed (which is the case here). Do you understand now?

[ferryman]

How many times do we have to explain how appeals work before you understand? The appeal goes to the first instance judge. If she doesn't accept the arguments, she then sends it up to the appeals court. There is no way that the appeal can stop in the first instance if the appellant fulfills the formalities of filing within the time limit, paying the respective court costs, being the legitimate person to appeal and the case falling under the types which can be appealed (which is the case here). Do you understand now?

Well, among those who appear to have the wrong end of the stick is Jean-Pierre.

I asked him this:

Whichever the day, how would you assess Amaral's chances of lodging grounds of an appeal the judge will deem satisfactory, JP?

He replied:

The grounds upon which the McCanns lawyers approached the case, and the Judge's application of the law, would seem to be correct, and according to the judgement leave very little room.

I think he would struggle to challenge the facts proven.

So any appeal will have to be on points of law, and they will have to be pretty fundamental.  At the moment I cant think of one.

So JP doesn't appear to take it as read that grounds of an appeal will be automatically accepted (and if they are not, the McCanns will be outright winners at first instance)!

You do.

Which of you is right?

[stephen25000]

Well, among those who appear to have the wrong end of the stick is Jean-Pierre.

I asked him this:

Whichever the day, how would you assess Amaral's chances of lodging grounds of an appeal the judge will deem satisfactory, JP?

He replied:

The grounds upon which the McCanns lawyers approached the case, and the Judge's application of the law, would seem to be correct, and according to the judgement leave very little room.

I think he would struggle to challenge the facts proven.

So any appeal will have to be on points of law, and they will have to be pretty fundamental.  At the moment I cant think of one.

So JP doesn't appear to take it as read that grounds of an appeal will be automatically accepted (and if they are not, the McCanns will be outright winners at first instance)!

You do.

Which of you is right?

The person who knows Portuguese Law.

[ferryman]

So does Leanne Baulch have a plan 'B' for what to do with all that money in the 'Goncalo' fund if Amaral is denied leave to appeal?

I gather the money is in the form of an outright gift, so there is no obligation to refund it.

But something will have to be done with it.

What?

[John]

Well, among those who appear to have the wrong end of the stick is Jean-Pierre.

I asked him this:

Whichever the day, how would you assess Amaral's chances of lodging grounds of an appeal the judge will deem satisfactory, JP?

He replied:

The grounds upon which the McCanns lawyers approached the case, and the Judge's application of the law, would seem to be correct, and according to the judgement leave very little room.

I think he would struggle to challenge the facts proven.

So any appeal will have to be on points of law, and they will have to be pretty fundamental.  At the moment I cant think of one.

So JP doesn't appear to take it as read that grounds of an appeal will be automatically accepted (and if they are not, the McCanns will be outright winners at first instance)!

You do.

Which of you is right?

That's not the feedback I am getting from lawyers practising in Portugal.  Although having some sympathy with the litigants, they feel that the judgement was politically motivated at a time of great judicial changes in the country.

The level of the judgement alone is unprecedented in Portugal and that alone would attract an automatic referral by a judge to the appeal court and higher.

The other point which appears to be coming across is that the parents appear to being rewarded for negligence.  That is something I personally don't necessarily agree with but is worth mentioning all the same.

[stephen25000]

So does Leanne Baulch have a plan 'B' for what to do with all that money in the 'Goncalo' fund if Amaral is denied leave to appeal?

I gather the money is in the form of an outright gift, so there is no obligation to refund it.

But something will have to be done with it.

What?

Do the mccanns have plan 'B' if Amaral wins the appeal and the mccanns are left with nothing but legal bills, which they so richly deserve.
IMO of course  ?

[Brietta]

Just saw this on the Amazon site................

'Well, Gezza & Katie (and their handful of ######## #######) have just been handed a very nice little "something to chew on for the weekend" over at gofundme:

'£1,000 MPS - 21 mins ago MPS from an anonymous but very large group of Brit. police officers, outraged at the way in which an SIO has been treated. This strikes at the very basis of the way investigations whould be conducted, "Without Fear or Favour, Malice or ill will". The world can clearly see where the malice and ill-will are in this case.'

http://www.gofundme.com/Legal-DefencePJGA  '


Mmmm.

Thanks to this very generous gift of a grand the Defence Fund has now reached a very useful £23,150 from 1,382 donations. The msm must be finding it increasingly difficult to ignore this phenomena and it is going to be illuminating to see which tabloid rag will break the news first, when the initial target is achieved

A goodly sum has been raised to support Mr Amaral to finance his appeal and it will soon reach its target ... but it is not an extraordinary amount ... for example  -  Crowdfunding against Carmichael raises £26.353 on day one #carmichaelmustgo  http://theorkneyvole.com/2015/05/27/crowdfunding-against-carmichael-raises-26-353-on-day-one-carmichaelmustgo/
I believe it is now far in excess of £40,000 http://news.stv.tv/scotland-decides/1321679-bid-to-oust-alistair-carmichael-over-frenchgate-memo-leak-raises-40000/

So it really isn't that much of a phenomena ... however I do look forward to the MSM take on it should there be one.

[ferryman]

That's not the feedback I am getting from lawyers practising in Portugal.  Although having some sympathy with the litigants, they feel that the judgement was politically motivated at a time of great judicial changes in the country.

The level of the judgement alone is unprecedented in Portugal and that alone would attract an automatic referral by a judge to the appeal court and higher.

The other point which appears to be coming across is that the parents appear to being rewarded for negligence.  That is something I personally don't necessarily agree with but is worth mentioning all the same.

Amaral did tell rather a lot of (proven!) lies in his book.

And the Portuguese prosecutors dismissed 'negligence' (promulgated enthusiastically by Amaral in his latest public utterances). 

[Montclair]

So does Leanne Baulch have a plan 'B' for what to do with all that money in the 'Goncalo' fund if Amaral is denied leave to appeal?

I gather the money is in the form of an outright gift, so there is no obligation to refund it.

But something will have to be done with it.

What?

Gonçalo Amaral cannot be denied leave to appeal!!!!!!! I believe that Jean-Pierre is talking about how the Appeals court will appreciate GA's arguments, not what the first instance judge can do. One thing she cannot do is not to send the appeal to a higher court, no matter whether she agrees or not with the appellant's arguments.

[John]

Amaral did tell rather a lot of (proven!) lies in his book.

And the Portuguese prosecutors dismissed 'negligence' (promulgated enthusiastically by Amaral in his latest public utterances).

Aside from the odd departure from reality, the problem with Gonçalo Amaral's book is that his underlying thesis has not been proven or disproven.  He claims the parents are guilty of a coverup following an accidental death, the problem remains that this has never been successfully challenged.

I believe the prosecutors considered then dismissed the crime of intentional neglect which is a different issue to simple negligence.  In many peoples view they were negligent,  to their credit they have admitted being negligent so I'm afraid we are stuck with that background.

[ferryman]

Aside from the odd departure from reality, the problem with Gonçalo Amaral's book is that his underlying thesis has not been proven or disproven.  He claims the parents are guilty of a coverup following an accidental death but this has never been successfully challenged.

I believe the prosecutors considered then dismissed the crime of intentional neglect which is a different issue to simple negligence.

If 'simple negligence' doesn't come under a legal remit, but is just a subjective personal judgement, then it is unlikely to have bearing or relevance upon the outcome of an appeal ....