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

[Alfred R Jones]

Quote
In six whirlwind weeks, almost 2,000 people have dug into their pockets, some again and again with tiny amounts, others occasionally with lump sums of £1000 at a time.
Unquote

I haven't looked at the site for while.    Are they still promoting the incorrect total of how many people have contributed by classing each donation as being from a different person - when in fact many of the donations are multiple donations being repeatedly made by the same people.

If they haven't corrected that error then ''almost 2,000 people' should read 'almost 2,000 donations' to be true.     The correct number of people who have contributed is obviously far less.

IMO It could be because - in the scheme of things  - the number of people who have contributed is so tiny that the Press haven't taken it up. 

Maybe they will at some point - who knows.

They won't correct it as it's obviously a pro-Amaral propaganda rag, and the only newspaper in the world that seems remotely interested in the Gonc Fund.

[jassi]

Only a nit-picker would bothered about such distinctions. The amount of money raised is what is important.

[Alfred R Jones]

Only a nit-picker would bothered about such distinctions. The amount of money raised is what is important.

Yeah, 1000 people, 2000 people what does it matter anyway, it's still a miniscule amount of support in the grand scheme of things, especially when you consider that Amaral is supposedly a national hero in Portugal.

[Benice]

Only a nit-picker would bothered about such distinctions. The amount of money raised is what is important.

So you think that pointing out that a fund which claims to be squeaky clean -  is in reality deceiving the public into thinking far more people are supporting it than actually are  - and then allows this false information to be spread  via the press -  is nitpicking?  Really?

IMO It's obvious that that this disinformation is being allowed to stand because they want the public to believe there are far more supporters than the real total would reveal.    That should tell you something.

And if that's not dishonest I don't know what is.

[Eleanor]

I will be deleting Off Topic Posts.

[pegasus]

Are the complete transcripts of this civil court case so far available? Or just small parts of it? Has the 2008 High Court UK police statement (written at same time as the disputed book was going to print) been brought up yet at any time in this case?

[ferryman]

I am bemused that an appeal merely challenging the size of the award was allowed at all.

To be clear, that's all (what!) Amaral's challenge consists of ....

[stephen25000]

I am bemused that an appeal merely challenging the size of the award was allowed at all.

To be clear, that's all (what!) Amaral's challenge consists of ....

Just wait ferryman.

 

[Eleanor]

How many times do I have to say, TOPIC. PLEASE?

[LagosBen]

So you think that pointing out that a fund which claims to be squeaky clean -  is in reality deceiving the public into thinking far more people are supporting it than actually are  - and then allows this false information to be spread  via the press -  is nitpicking?  Really?

IMO It's obvious that that this disinformation is being allowed to stand because they want the public to believe there are far more supporters than the real total would reveal.    That should tell you something.

And if that's not dishonest I don't know what is.

Will there be a clear account of how the donators money is being used for this appeal?
Considering they insist on the McCann's being super clear....... &%+((£

[Montclair]

I am bemused that an appeal merely challenging the size of the award was allowed at all.

To be clear, that's all (what!) Amaral's challenge consists of ....

How do you know anything? Did you read his appeal?

[ferryman]

How do you know anything? Did you read his appeal?

That libel was established and proved is evident from the request of Santos at the commencement of proceedings that  they be in camera to protect Madeleine lest Madeleine be alive.

Re-acquaint yourself with the last chapter of Amaral's book if you don't believe me.

Surely Portuguese law does not allow one party to a dispute to reclaim ground already ceded at an earlier juncture unless new information comes to light to justify such a manoeuvre, does it?

[Carana]

How do you know anything? Did you read his appeal?

Have you, Montclair? If so, where can one find it?

[G-Unit]

Will there be a clear account of how the donators money is being used for this appeal?
Considering they insist on the McCann's being super clear....... &%+((£

Well, if the FMF is anything to go by you'll need to spend at least eight years wondering.

[stephen25000]

Will there be a clear account of how the donators money is being used for this appeal?
Considering they insist on the McCann's being super clear....... &%+((£

Ah, back again.

You mean like the mccanns funds are not  ?