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

[Benice]

There you go again, putting your own slant on the archiving report.

The AG stated there was no proof they were involved..NOT THAT THEY WEREN'T !!!

The jury's still out on that question ferryman.

How can the 'jury still be out' as to whether or not they were involved -  when both the PJ and SY have said they are not suspects?     

That can only mean that they have been cleared of any suspicion of involvement by both police forces.

A group of sceptics in a corner of the internet who do not want to accept that fact is not a 'jury' - except in their own minds IMO.

[stephen25000]

How can the 'jury still be out' as to whether or not they were involved -  when both the PJ and SY have said they are not suspects?     

That can only mean that they have been cleared of any suspicion of involvement by both police forces.

A group of sceptics in a corner of the internet who do not want to accept that fact is not a 'jury' - except in their own minds IMO.

Unfortunately benice, the crime remains unknown.

Beliefs DON'T COUNT, DO THEY.

[ferryman]

Why was Amaral's (latest in a long line of!) lawyers recently heard wittering vacuously about neglect?

Does anyone know?

[Angelo222]

All im-modesty to the fore, I've yet to hear a more plausible explanation than mine of why Santos began proceedings with a plea that proceedings be in camera to protect Madeleine lest Madeleine be alive.

Libel was admitted, making sense of pronouncements about later proceedings that they were damages proceedings.

Indeed, proceedings to establish damage arising from proven and admitted libel ...

Libel has never been admitted ferryman, do you dwell in a parallel universe by any chance? 

[jassi]

Why was Amaral's (latest in a long line of!) lawyers recently heard wittering vacuously about neglect?

Does anyone know?

Does anyone care?

[Angelo222]

How can the 'jury still be out' as to whether or not they were involved -  when both the PJ and SY have said they are not suspects?     

That can only mean that they have been cleared of any suspicion of involvement by both police forces.

A group of sceptics in a corner of the internet who do not want to accept that fact is not a 'jury' - except in their own minds IMO.

As time goes by that could all change, this is the simple fact which many fail to comprehend. They have never been cleared since the crime if any has never been established.

[ferryman]

Libel has never been admitted ferryman, do you dwell in a parallel universe by any chance?

I just observe events as they unfold.

We'll see.

[Benice]

Unfortunately benice, the crime remains unknown.

Beliefs DON'T COUNT, DO THEY.

Whatever the crime was - it is a fact that as a result of their investigations - the McCanns and their friends have been ruled out as suspects by both police forces.   They are not even persons of interest.

That is not a belief Stephen  - it's a FACT.

[John]

As time goes by that could all change, this is the simple fact which many fail to comprehend. They have never been cleared since the crime if any has never been established.

The parents are unfortunately in limboland and will continue to be so for as long as Madeleine's fate is unknown.  Not a nice situation to be in by any means.

[ferryman]

The parents are unfortunately in limboland and will continue to be so for as long as Madeleine's fate is unknown.  Not a nice situation to be in by any means.

If, by that, you mean suffering the unbearable tension and distress of just not knowing, then agreed.

But if you mean in the frame (as suspects), then disagreed ...

[John]

If, by that, you mean suffering the unbearable tension and distress of just not knowing, then agreed.

But if you mean in the frame (as suspects), then disagreed ...

Only they know the answer to that one so it would be wrong to speculate.

[Carana]

If it goes through (which I expect it will), it will be nit-picking over one or more points of fact presented in court or law, IMO. E.g., the judge hadn't fully considered x, y or z and that a different interpretation could be made.

[ferryman]

I think the only thing Amaral can appeal is the size of the award, which would make sense of witterings about 'neglect'.

That's probably what Amaral is basing his plea on ...

There seems to be some confusion about Portuguese practise, here.

High awards are (virtually) unheard of in criminal libel cases.

Civil libel cases are, themselves, rare.

But where they occur, there is no cap on the size of an award.

[ferryman]

As time goes by that could all change, this is the simple fact which many fail to comprehend. They have never been cleared since the crime if any has never been established.

There is the technical possibility of something (at present unknown) coming to light which might switch the focus of attention to the McCanns (or any of their friends). 

But that would seem extremely unlikely.

*Edited for syntax

[Carana]

I think the only thing Amaral can appeal is the size of the award, which would make sense of witterings about 'neglect'.

That's probably what Amaral is basing his plea on ...

There seems to be some confusion about Portuguese practise, here.

High awards are (virtually) unheard of in criminal libel cases.

Civil libel cases are, themselves, rare.

But where they occur, there is no cap on the size of an award.

I don't see how any recent witterings about anything would affect the issues under consideration.