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

[pegasus]

The only way K McCann is an injured party is she is innocent, that hasn't been declared by any any authority at least, and the Portuguese authorities have stated the nature of the crime is unknown, so, the lawsuit is a bit of an oxymoron to begin with

The judge made it very clear that the current legal case is not to decide what happened on May 3rd.
Its about legal things much more trivial IMO. The document is on this thread somewhere.

[Brietta]

The only way K McCann is an injured party is she is innocent, that hasn't been declared by any any authority at least, and the Portuguese authorities have stated the nature of the crime is unknown, so, the lawsuit is a bit of an oxymoron to begin with

How extraordinary that you are so studiously ignoring Judge Maria Emília Melo e Castro' s ruling in this matter ...

[mercury]

How extraordinary that you are so studiously ignoring Judge Maria Emília Melo e Castro' s ruling in this matter ...

No different to your ilk "ignoring" other judicial decision yet screaming "they're wring they're wrong" lol

Btw I am not ignoring her decision...it is reversible, the law a,lows for wrongful decisions. That's why appeals are allowed dear

[pegasus]

@mercury
"An experienced Fund Administrator has been appointed to ensure the highest standards of transparency"
So we can just write and ask.
It's obviously relevant to this thread, to know who pays for both sides' legal expenses

[pegasus]

Objects of FMF:
 
"To secure the safe return to her family of Madeleine McCann who was abducted in Praia da Luz, Portugal on Thursday 3rd May 2007;
To procure that Madeleine's abduction is thoroughly investigated and that her abductors, as well as those who played or play any part in assisting them, are identified and brought to justice"

Does paying legal expenses of the current legal case fall under those two objects?

(Note to mods - it is very relevant to this thread to know who pays both sides' legal expenses)

[misty]

Objects of FMF:
 
"To secure the safe return to her family of Madeleine McCann who was abducted in Praia da Luz, Portugal on Thursday 3rd May 2007;
To procure that Madeleine's abduction is thoroughly investigated and that her abductors, as well as those who played or play any part in assisting them, are identified and brought to justice"

Does paying legal expenses of the current legal case fall under those two objects?

(Note to mods - it is very relevant to this thread to know who pays both sides' legal expenses)

IMO it does, if the Fund is actually contributing.

[mercury]

Objects of FMF:
 
"To secure the safe return to her family of Madeleine McCann who was abducted in Praia da Luz, Portugal on Thursday 3rd May 2007;
To procure that Madeleine's abduction is thoroughly investigated and that her abductors, as well as those who played or play any part in assisting them, are identified and brought to justice"

Does paying legal expenses of the current legal case fall under those two objects?

(Note to mods - it is very relevant to this thread to know who pays both sides' legal expenses)

the objectives of the fund appearing in the findmadeleine.com website state also financial assistance to the family

Btw I see my post of earlier has been deleted for some reason...the one stating the FUND  paid for the legal expenses to sue Mr Amaral...how wierd

[pegasus]

the objectives of the fund appearing in the findmadeleine.com website state also financial assistance to the family

Btw I see my post of earlier has been deleted for some reason...the one stating the FUND  paid for the legal expenses to sue Mr Amaral...how wierd

You will find the correct list of objects at company house.
Trust no other source.
Only company house.
Or as we say down here in the philosophy department
RULE 1.1.3  There is no rule 1.1.3 (we scrapped it years ago just after .. .... ... ..... ........)

[pegasus]

(snip)...Btw I see my post of earlier has been deleted for some reason...(snip)

Forums software is not perfect, it will probably work 2nd time.

[pegasus]

IMO it does, if the Fund is actually contributing.

@misty If it is paying, would the expense of using Smethwick Alves and Duarte fall under the first, or the second "object"?
And would donators reasonably have anticipated this interpretation?

[mercury]

Forums software is not perfect, it will probably work 2nd time.

Quite confused...I posted the FUND PAID  for suing G  Amaral whch is a FACT as typed up in black and white in the FUND ACCOUNTS
So

WHY is my post continuously being deleted! and who by? Bizarre.

Bye again

[Jean-Pierre]

The only way K McCann is an injured party is she is innocent, that hasn't been declared by any any authority at least, and the Portuguese authorities have stated the nature of the crime is unknown, so, the lawsuit is a bit of an oxymoron to begin with

Which bit of "innocent until proven guilty" do you have a problem understanding?

[Miss Taken Identity]

Which bit of "innocent until proven guilty" do you have a problem understanding?

That only applies in a court of law..however If a person kills someone  and leaves no evidence or proof this does not make that person 'innocent'.

It means they did kill someone but the police/ PF could not proof it.

I know I smashed my greenhouse window as a child. no one asked me if i did it, I didn't volunteer the information so it was 'established' it must have been 'vandals'...oops! Confessions of a children's playtime.

[misty]

@misty If it is paying, would the expense of using Smethwick Alves and Duarte fall under the first, or the second "object"?
And would donators reasonably have anticipated this interpretation?

It would fall under the second objective, IMO. The actions of the ex-SIO played no small part in assisting the abductor(s) escape justice.
As to the interpretation - the failings of the investigation were already apparent when the fund was set up, but no-one donating initially would have had a notion that a serving investigating officer would have written a book making libellous accusations against the parents & friends. He has twisted the knife time & time again and, for Madeleine's sake, he needs to be removed from the gravy train.

[mercury]

Which bit of "innocent until proven guilty" do you have a problem understanding?

"Presumed" innocent in a court of law is the correct phrase JP. I have no problem there.
But what you are saying is someone could very well be guilty of a crime but nonetheless the Portuguese courts can award them damages on "presumption" not "facts". Is that really the case? Ifso, any uncharged and or convicted criminal can claim damages.

Question: What will the learned Judge think should the case arise that it is found the couple were "not innocent". Where would that leave her decision?