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

[Anna]

No sauces Carana, just noticing a silence.
I bet no-one can tell me who are NW and HM ??
Here's a clue - they and their teams have been working hard behind the scenes and for months now have been completely silent. An interesting silence IMO which may mean they are making real progess? That would make the libel case insignificant.

You do like quizs Pegasus. Nicola Walls and Helen Monteiro

[pegasus]

You do like quizs Pegasus. Nicola Walls and Helen Monteiro

Yes.
There is an old saying in our old village pub.
"A woman who is not talking is very busy".
And BTW one of them has a reputation for solving crimes before anyone notices.

[pegasus]

Yes it did. As so many do.

Thanks. So is it normal, for the other party to first hear of the injunction against them on the telly?

[Anna]

Yes.
There is an old saying in our old village pub.
"A woman who is not talking is very busy".
And BTW one of them has a reputation for solving crimes before anyone notices.

Yes Nicola, does.  However, I don't think they would be interesting in his appeal, so lets get back on the topic of The thread again.

[pegasus]

Another legal question, could the judge decide to rule (in the appeal) in favour of one of the 5 appellants and against another of the 5, or must the judge treat all 5 identically as if they were one combined person?

[Montclair]

Another legal question, could the judge decide to rule (in the appeal) in favour of one of the 5 appellants and against another of the 5, or must the judge treat all 5 identically as if they were one combined person?

There is only one appellant, Gonçalo Amaral. The judge acquitted all of the others even though they divulged the same "theories" as Gonçalo Amaral because they, as normal citizens, had the right to say that the McCanns could have hidden Madeleine's body and simulated an abduction but he didn't as an ex-policeman. This means that, if the book, had been written by a journalist, there was no libel or lies in it to cause damages to the parents but with the name of Gonçalo Amaral on the cover it caused damages, even though the judge stated in the "factos provados" that the McCanns did not suffer significant damages!

[Jean-Pierre]

There is only one appellant, Gonçalo Amaral. The judge acquitted all of the others even though they divulged the same "theories" as Gonçalo Amaral because they, as normal citizens, had the right to say that the McCanns could have hidden Madeleine's body and simulated an abduction but he didn't as an ex-policeman. This means that, if the book, had been written by a journalist, there was no libel or lies in it to cause damages to the parents but with the name of Gonçalo Amaral on the cover it caused damages, even though the judge stated in the "factos provados" that the McCanns did not suffer significant damages!

Had it been written by A N Other how many copies woukd it have sold.  Even if a publisher could be found.

[Montclair]

Had it been written by A N Other how many copies woukd it have sold.  Even if a publisher could be found.

So, therefore, it is not the content of the book that matters. It only matters who wrote it and how much it sold? IMO that is a ridiculous argument!

[Jean-Pierre]

So, therefore, it is not the content of the book that matters. It only matters who wrote it and how much it sold? IMO that is a ridiculous argument!

Don't be stupid.  He wrote a book accusing grieving parents of committing crimes with no evidence or due process.  If he had not been the coordinator of the case nobody would have taken any notice. 

It seems amaral was arrogant enough to believe the rules didn't apply to him. 

[ferryman]

There is only one appellant, Gonçalo Amaral. The judge acquitted all of the others even though they divulged the same "theories" as Gonçalo Amaral because they, as normal citizens, had the right to say that the McCanns could have hidden Madeleine's body and simulated an abduction but he didn't as an ex-policeman. This means that, if the book, had been written by a journalist, there was no libel or lies in it to cause damages to the parents but with the name of Gonçalo Amaral on the cover it caused damages, even though the judge stated in the "factos provados" that the McCanns did not suffer significant damages!

Why do you suppose that (as per the injunction until it was overturned!) all further sales of book or film have been barred?

And where is the confirmation Amaral has been granted leave to appeal?

[Montclair]

Don't be stupid.  He wrote a book accusing grieving parents of committing crimes with no evidence or due process.  If he had not been the coordinator of the case nobody would have taken any notice. 

It seems amaral was arrogant enough to believe the rules didn't apply to him.

The investigation suspected them of hiding their child's body and simulating an abduction and GA gave an account of that investigation. So, in your words, if anyone else had accused these "grieving parents of committing crimes with no evidence or due process" in a book, it was all right because nobody would have taken notice,

[ferryman]

The investigation suspected them of hiding their child's body and simulating an abduction and GA gave an account of that investigation. So, in your words, if anyone else had accused these "grieving parents of committing crimes with no evidence or due process" in a book, it was all right because nobody would have taken notice,

A cross-section of the PJ contingent of the investigation considered that, or (possibly) pretended to consider it to test out their suspects.

Blatant misinterpretation of evidence.

But was that malicious?

Or incompetent?

[Jean-Pierre]

A cross-section of the PJ contingent of the investigation considered that, or (possibly) pretended to consider it to test out their suspects.

Blatant misinterpretation of evidence.

But was that malicious?

Or incompetent?

It would be less likey that the court woukd find against.  There are rules against police officers writing books accusing suspects, for obvious reasons.  Your friend amaral is a victim of his own arrogance.  Tough.

[Brietta]

The investigation suspected them of hiding their child's body and simulating an abduction and GA gave an account of that investigation. So, in your words, if anyone else had accused these "grieving parents of committing crimes with no evidence or due process" in a book, it was all right because nobody would have taken notice,

As co-ordinator of the investigation you are saying he had no input to the investigation and his theory carried no weight?

It certainly carried a lot more weight than ... what's his name &%+((£ ... who also wrote a book on the subject but who most of us had never heard of until mentioned by the trial judge.

[ferryman]

So where is the confirmation that justifies the title of this thread?