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

[ferryman]

Not appealing wouldn't be a good idea either. After all € 500.000,00 plus interest are at stake as well as freedom of expression and book banning.

It's never a good idea to conflate lies and libel (copiously served in Amaral's book, film and interviews) with freedom of expression.

The two are completely different.

Amaral's "freedom" to transmit the lies of his book and film has been taken away from him.

The only question now left to resolve is what level of compensation to the McCanns and their children for Amaral's smear campaign is right.

[Brietta]

Not appealing wouldn't be a good idea either. After all € 500.000,00 plus interest are at stake as well as freedom of expression and book banning.

At least this time the perceived 'gag' is a Portuguese one ... only a matter of time till the outraged citizens of Portugal take to the streets on Mr Amaral's behalf ... or at the least contribute a couple of Euros to his appeal fund.

[Carana]

I have always said the same, they were badly advised but then these lawyers have a vested interest in the McCanns regardless of whether it is England or Portugal. The McCanns have become a nice little earner and a potential cash cow for some unscrupulous operators.

The biggest mistake the McCanns made was in attempting to sue Amaral for £1million.  They have lost a lot of sympathy by their perceived GREED!

No wonder, if the media avoid reporting how much HE GAINED...

The amount of €1.1m appears to have been based on assumed income, however, I haven't found a supporting document as to where the breakdown of those figures came from.

Even €500k seems high by PT standards, but then what articles don't appear to mention is the enormous amount of money that he made between mid-2008 and 2009.

And the income taken into consideration only appears to concern the book, the "documentary" and the DVD sales during that period. It doesn't appear to cover amounts that he may have earned by interviews / articles via other media. The Sky-related proposed interview at a cost of €80k + VAT didn't work out, but who knows which others did?

And all of that money gained by insisting that a missing little girl is dead - and that therefore there was no point in searching for her - and that the parents were involved in various associated criminal activities.

He could have written a book in a different way and could even have participated in the "documentary" in a more measured way and they would still have been best-sellers.

Who were you saying was greedy?

[G-Unit]

It's never a good idea to conflate lies and libel (copiously served in Amaral's book, film and interviews) with freedom of expression.

The two are completely different.

Amaral's "freedom" to transmit the lies of his book and film has been taken away from him.

The only question now left to resolve is what level of compensation to the McCanns and their children for Amaral's smear campaign is right.

I wonder how many more times you need to hear this? The judge said it wasn't illegal to say what Amaral said. she also said the facts in his book were mostly taken from the case files (not lies).

What she said was wrong was that he used privileged information to write his book (information he had access to as the co-ordinator of the investigation) and that as a retired policeman he failed to uphold the presumption of innocence, as he was bound to do.

The claims of the McCann children against Amaral were dismissed as not proven. So was the claim that his book damaged the 'search' for Madeleine. Only the parents received an award because the book damaged their reputation. It was banned to stop further damage.

[Mr Gray]

I wonder how many more times you need to hear this? The judge said it wasn't illegal to say what Amaral said. she also said the facts in his book were mostly taken from the case files (not lies).

What she said was wrong was that he used privileged information to write his book (information he had access to as the co-ordinator of the investigation) and that as a retired policeman he failed to uphold the presumption of innocence, as he was bound to do.

The claims of the McCann children against Amaral were dismissed as not proven. So was the claim that his book damaged the 'search' for Madeleine. Only the parents received an award because the book damaged their reputation. It was banned to stop further damage.

It's you who needs to listen...no one said what amaral said was illegal.......that's why it was a civil case not acriminal  case.....a lot of what amaral said was taken from the files but he added to that and told lies...

I'm sure we have not seen the full judgement

[Mr Gray]

Not sure about that, Davel.

If it is a translation of "sentença", there are a lot of meanings: award, verdict, sentence, judgement...

what you are saying is that the translation...on this Portuguese site...may not be accurate...I agree with you but what does that say for all the other translations that some claim prove the McCanns to be inconsistent

[Alice Purjorick]

No.  Are the McCanns actively campaigning for contributions to The Fund?  Have they any need to whilst Op Grange is happening?  You haven't the faintest idea of the level of their support, and whether or not it has gone up or down and don't think that the Amaral Fund is an indication of anything more than the level of his fanatical support ie: tiny.

Merchandise remains on sale in the online store with 6 options for values of online donations.
Does that not count?

[Carana]

I wonder how many more times you need to hear this? The judge said it wasn't illegal to say what Amaral said. she also said the facts in his book were mostly taken from the case files (not lies).

What she said was wrong was that he used privileged information to write his book (information he had access to as the co-ordinator of the investigation) and that as a retired policeman he failed to uphold the presumption of innocence, as he was bound to do.

The claims of the McCann children against Amaral were dismissed as not proven. So was the claim that his book damaged the 'search' for Madeleine. Only the parents received an award because the book damaged their reputation. It was banned to stop further damage.

That was carefully worded, G-unit, and I find that to be a reasonable summary at first glance.

Concerning "The judge said it wasn't illegal to say what Amaral said." Yes, she did say that, and that seems to be the starting point in PT law. However, Murat won his appeal against CdaM, despite the fact that he couldn't prove the fairly obvious point that CdaM had gained its "info" from police sources.

[Carana]

what you are saying is that the translation...on this Portuguese site...may not be accurate...I agree with you but what does that say for all the other translations that some claim prove the McCanns to be inconsistent

That's why I find it pointless to nitpick details in general, particularly witness statements, some of which have 4-5 overlapping issues that make them virtually useless aside from a general gist.

[ferryman]

That was carefully worded, G-unit, and I find that to be a reasonable summary at first glance.

Concerning "The judge said it wasn't illegal to say what Amaral said." Yes, she did say that, and that seems to be the starting point in PT law. However, Murat won his appeal against CdaM, despite the fact that he couldn't prove the fairly obvious point that CdaM had gained its "info" from police sources.

Libel is a judgment on falsehoods that lower reputation.

Amaral's book (and no doubt, film, though I've never watched it) is littered with falsehoods that lower reputation.

That is why Amaral lost the libel trial.

That is the classic definition of libel.

It is why Amaral lost.

[stephen25000]

Libel is a judgment on falsehoods that lower reputation.

Amaral's book (and no doubt, film, though I've never watched it) is littered with falsehoods that lower reputation.

That is why Amaral lost the libel trial.

That is the classic definition of libel.

It is why Amaral lost.

Now wait for the appeal.

Probably at least a year away.

[Carana]

Libel is a judgment on falsehoods that lower reputation.

Amaral's book (and no doubt, film, though I've never watched it) is littered with falsehoods that lower reputation.

That is why Amaral lost the libel trial.

That is the classic definition of libel.

It is why Amaral lost.

I'd agree with you that his book had zero chance of being published in the UK, and that his "documentary" had no chance of being picked up by a mainstream UK channel.

PT, however, is a different world.

[Alfred R Jones]

Merchandise remains on sale in the online store with 6 options for values of online donations.
Does that not count?

No it does not.  A few buttons on a not-very-busy website does not equate to "actively campaigning" in my view, but no doubt you know better.

[Alice Purjorick]

No it does not.  A few buttons on a not-very-busy website does not equate to "actively campaigning" in my view, but no doubt you know better.

I don't really wish to get into a pointless debate on the meanings of "actively", old stick.
The facility to donate exists on a website, whether that website is a backwater or not is largely irrelevant.
There remains a current "campaign" to obtain funds, from the public, under one guise or another.

[ferryman]

I'd agree with you that that's his book had zero chance of being published in the UK, and why his "documentary" had no chance of being picked up by a mainstream UK channel.

PT, however, is a different world.

Only in where burden of proof lies.

The majority of this case was settled in written submissions, just not seen on line.

If they had been seen on line Ms Baulch's fund would scarcely have a euro in it.