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

[pegasus]

Even before that their argument was weak for many reasons why have been gone over before and never possible to substantiate

IMO it could be reasonably justified as "aiding the search" originally.
That's important because search is one of the fund's two stated objects.
IMO that justification became a bit weaker when SY formally opened their full investigation.
And then I imagine 2nd Sept 2015 may have been a convenient waypoint at which to cautiously reconsider this question - Can contesting the appeal be reasonably considered to be aiding the search?

[mercury]

IMO it could be reasonably justified as "aiding the search" originally.
That's important because search is one of the fund's two stated objects.
IMO that justification became a bit weaker when SY formally opened their full investigation.
And then I imagine 2nd Sept 2015 may have been a convenient waypoint at which to cautiously reconsider this question - Can contesting the appeal be reasonably considered to be aiding the search?

Suing Amaral IMO never "aided the search", it can be argued it hindered it

[G-Unit]

Suing Amaral IMO never "aided the search", it can be argued it hindered it

Amaral didn't harm the search, the judge said so. He didn't libel the children, the judge said so. He 'damaged' the McCanns, that's what the judge found. Now that the clause of 'supporting the family' is no longer one of the Fund's aims, I would think paying any money out to lawyers or the courts for this case would be hard to justify.

[ferryman]

Amaral didn't harm the search, the judge said so. He didn't libel the children, the judge said so. He 'damaged' the McCanns, that's what the judge found. Now that the clause of 'supporting the family' is no longer one of the Fund's aims, I would think paying any money out to lawyers or the courts for this case would be hard to justify.

I think the judge concluded that a sufficient causal link between harm to the search and Amaral's spoutings (in book, video and interviews) had not been demonstrated.

Vastly different from the (bogus) claim that harm to the search had been "disproved".

[G-Unit]

I think the judge concluded that a sufficient causal link between harm to the search and Amaral's spoutings (in book, video and interviews) had not been demonstrated.

Vastly different from the (bogus) claim that harm to the search had been "disproved".

The onus was upon those claiming that Amaral's views harmed the search to prove it. They couldn't. That makes it an unsupported allegation. As they can't prove that the search was harmed, they can't use that as a reason for spending Fund money on the appeal.

[ferryman]

The onus was upon those claiming that Amaral's views harmed the search to prove it. They couldn't. That makes it an unsupported allegation. As they can't prove that the search was harmed, they can't use that as a reason for spending Fund money on the appeal.

Some things ought to be so self-evident, they shouldn't stand in need of proof.

How can someone (the former lead detective in the shelved investigation) write a book, sold in droves across countries of Europe, saying theMcCannsdunit,cocealedacrime,andlauchedafraudulent'appeal'intheirdeaddaughter'sname and that not harm the search for Madeleine?

As it stands, I am slow to be critical of the learned Portuguese judge, because I think she set the tenor of her judgment so as to make it difficult for Amaral to sustain an appeal.

If that's right, then I applaud that ....

[Mr Gray]

The onus was upon those claiming that Amaral's views harmed the search to prove it. They couldn't. That makes it an unsupported allegation. As they can't prove that the search was harmed, they can't use that as a reason for spending Fund money on the appeal.

they can...and they have...amaral seems to think the judge was wrong on other issues so was the judge right re the search

[stephen25000]

Some things ought to be so self-evident, they shouldn't stand in need of proof.

How can someone (the former lead detective in the shelved investigation) write a book, sold in droves across countries of Europe, saying theMcCannsdunit,cocealedacrime,andlauchedafraudulent'appeal'intheirdeaddaughter'sname and that not harm the search for Madeleine?

As it stands, I am slow to be critical of the learned Portuguese judge, because I think she set the tenor of her judgment so as to make it difficult for Amaral to sustain an appeal.

If that's right, then I applaud that ....

.............and your opinion is of no value whatsoever, and entirely predictable.

She gave her interpretation of the law.

Now let's see what happens next time.

[G-Unit]

they can...and they have...amaral seems to think the judge was wrong on other issues so was the judge right re the search

They have indeed, but it can't be justified. Are you saying the judge was wrong? Oh dear, perhaps she was wrong about her legal opinions too?

[Lace]

The onus was upon those claiming that Amaral's views harmed the search to prove it. They couldn't. That makes it an unsupported allegation. As they can't prove that the search was harmed, they can't use that as a reason for spending Fund money on the appeal.

I don't know how they could say that an ex police officer in charge of the disappearance of Madeleine who wrote a book saying that Madeleine was dead that the McCann's had faked an abduction and hidden her body,  didn't harm the search for Madeleine.

How many people would think 'well that's it,  Madeleine's dead,  it couldn't have been her I saw'   and didn't report what they may or might have seen?

The fact that they couldn't PROVE it is another matter,  how can you prove something like that?

[G-Unit]

I don't know how they could say that an ex police officer in charge of the disappearance of Madeleine who wrote a book saying that Madeleine was dead that the McCann's had faked an abduction and hidden her body,  didn't harm the search for Madeleine.

How many people would think 'well that's it,  Madeleine's dead,  it couldn't have been her I saw'   and didn't report what they may or might have seen?

The fact that they couldn't PROVE it is another matter,  how can you prove something like that?

In a court of law proof has to be provided, opinion doesn't count. What the judge concluded was that the McCanns were unable to provide that proof.

[Carana]

I don't know how they could say that an ex police officer in charge of the disappearance of Madeleine who wrote a book saying that Madeleine was dead that the McCann's had faked an abduction and hidden her body,  didn't harm the search for Madeleine.

How many people would think 'well that's it,  Madeleine's dead,  it couldn't have been her I saw'   and didn't report what they may or might have seen?

The fact that they couldn't PROVE it is another matter,  how can you prove something like that?

With enormous difficulty.

Paiva stated that the book hadn't hindered the continued investigation (he shared Amaral's view before the book was published, so it didn't actually change anything).

The judge found it was hard to quantify any change in public opinion, but what's not taken into account is the amount of damage created by half-baked leaks from his team prior to the publication.

The book and the DVD are only the tip of the iceberg - how many times have he and his pals been on TV shows and in every rag that will publish their "expert" opinions? Each time reinforces the idea that the child isn't worth looking for in one way or another.

[Carana]

Some things ought to be so self-evident, they shouldn't stand in need of proof.

How can someone (the former lead detective in the shelved investigation) write a book, sold in droves across countries of Europe, saying theMcCannsdunit,cocealedacrime,andlauchedafraudulent'appeal'intheirdeaddaughter'sname and that not harm the search for Madeleine?

As it stands, I am slow to be critical of the learned Portuguese judge, because I think she set the tenor of her judgment so as to make it difficult for Amaral to sustain an appeal.

If that's right, then I applaud that ....

I thought the original injunction judgement was quite well thought out and balanced, but then compare that to the Supreme Court ruling...

[Carana]

I was hunting for something different, but I came across this again (undated, so I'm not sure if it's the latest).

Penal code.

It concerns someone who discovers and reveals confidential information as a result of their professional work, and it's aggravated if it's used in exchange for a reward or enrichment.

ARTIGO 195.º
(Violação de segredo)

Quem, sem consentimento, revelar segredo alheio de que tenha tomado conhecimento em razão do seu estado, ofício, emprego, profissão ou arte é punido com pena de prisão até 1 ano ou com pena de multa até 240 dias.

ARTIGO 197.º
(Agravação)

As penas previstas nos artigos 190.º a 195.º são elevadas de um terço nos seus limites mínimo e máximo se o facto for praticado:
a) Para obter recompensa ou enriquecimento, para o agente ou para outra pessoa, ou para causar prejuízo a outra pessoa ou ao Estado; ou
b) Através de meio de comunicação social.

[Brietta]

I was hunting for something different, but I came across this again (undated, so I'm not sure if it's the latest).

Penal code.

It concerns someone who discovers and reveals confidential information as a result of their professional work, and it's aggravated if it's used in exchange for a reward or enrichment.

ARTIGO 195.º
(Violação de segredo)

Quem, sem consentimento, revelar segredo alheio de que tenha tomado conhecimento em razão do seu estado, ofício, emprego, profissão ou arte é punido com pena de prisão até 1 ano ou com pena de multa até 240 dias.

ARTIGO 197.º
(Agravação)

As penas previstas nos artigos 190.º a 195.º são elevadas de um terço nos seus limites mínimo e máximo se o facto for praticado:
a) Para obter recompensa ou enriquecimento, para o agente ou para outra pessoa, ou para causar prejuízo a outra pessoa ou ao Estado; ou
b) Através de meio de comunicação social.

What does using the means of social communication mean?  Is that reference to the internet or can it be taken as TV and radio?