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

[ferryman]

242 pages and almost 7 months since the opening post of this thread, and still no official confirmation of Amaral's appeal.

Why is that?

[slartibartfast]

242 pages and almost 7 months since the opening post of this thread, and still no official confirmation of Amaral's appeal.

Why is that?

I don't suppose anyone official posts on here.

[Alfred R Jones]

The part of the "conclusion" you quote was actually postulated by DCI Andy in his usual all round The Wrekin syntax.
There are ten points to the summary and conclusion in Sr Amarals book why skint yourself on just one bit?. I guess counting is not your long suit.

Hang on a minute.

Davel said that Amaral stated as fact that Madeleine died in the apartment.

You said "not according to the link provided"

I posted proof from his idiotic book that he DID state as FACT that Madeleine died in the apartment.

You claimed it was just a hypothesis.

I proved it was part of his conclusion, no equivocation.

I can count thanks, and I can count on you to muddy the waters as usual.

[slartibartfast]

Hang on a minute.

Davel said that Amaral stated as fact that Madeleine died in the apartment.

You said "not according to the link provided"

I posted proof from his idiotic book that he DID state as FACT that Madeleine died in the apartment.

You claimed it was just a hypothesis.

I proved it was part of his conclusion, no equivocation.

I can count thanks, and I can count on you to muddy the waters as usual.

In the UK we have...

The 'honest opinion' defence will replace the 'fair comment' defence when the Defamation Act 2013 comes into force.

It can be used as a defence to defamation claims if the defendant can show (i) that the statement in question was an opinion, (ii) that within the statement there was an apparent basis to the opinion and (iii) the statement is one that an honest person could have held.

A person claiming defamation can defeat this defence if they can demonstrate that the author of the statement complained about did not hold the opinion.

[Alfred R Jones]

In the UK we have...

Thanks but that is totally irrelevant to the point I was making in my post, in response to Alice.

[Alice Purjorick]

Hang on a minute.

Davel said that Amaral stated as fact that Madeleine died in the apartment.

You said "not according to the link provided"

I posted proof from his idiotic book that he DID state as FACT that Madeleine died in the apartment.

You claimed it was just a hypothesis.

I proved it was part of his conclusion, no equivocation.

I can count thanks, and I can count on you to muddy the waters as usual.

Davel said    "he [Amaral] states these things as facts".
He doesn't not. He says "The conclusions my team and I have arrived at are the following:".
As no one can prove one way or another what happened what is any conclusion other than a hypothesis at this junction as yer might say.
Muddy Waters cool dude.

[Alfred R Jones]

Davel said    "he [Amaral] states these things as facts".
He doesn't not. He says "The conclusions my team and I have arrived at are the following:".
As no one can prove one way or another what happened what is any conclusion other than a hypothesis at this junction as yer might say.
Muddy Waters cool dude.

You are categorically wrong.  On the subject of the death in the apartment, Amaral concludes that Madeleine died there because of his firm belief in the accuracy of the dog alerts.  No hypothesis, no equivocation.

[ferryman]

You are categorically wrong.  On the subject of the death in the apartment, Amaral concludes that Madeleine died there because of his firm belief in the accuracy of the dog alerts.  No hypothesis, no equivocation.

If memory serves right, he does hedge it slightly, with words such as probably, which certainly in terms of English libel law, mitigates the libel not one jot.

All ought to be bad news for Amaral's appeal ....

[mercury]

If memory serves right, he does hedge it slightly, with words such as probably, which certainly in terms of English libel law, mitigates the libel not one jot.

All ought to be bad news for Amaral's appeal ....

If you are going to use English law (not sure why)  you may as well at least acknowledge it has come closer to current Portuguese law vis a vis as Slarti posted above

The 'honest opinion' defence will replace the 'fair comment' defence when the Defamation Act 2013 comes into force.

It can be used as a defence to defamation claims if the defendant can show (i) that the statement in question was an opinion, (ii) that within the statement there was an apparent basis to the opinion and (iii) the statement is one that an honest person could have held.

A person claiming defamation can defeat this defence if they can demonstrate that the author of the statement complained about did not hold the opinion.

[Mr Gray]

If you are going to use English law (not sure why)  you may as well at least acknowledge it has come closer to current Portuguese law vis a vis as Slarti posted above

The 'honest opinion' defence will replace the 'fair comment' defence when the Defamation Act 2013 comes into force.

It can be used as a defence to defamation claims if the defendant can show (i) that the statement in question was an opinion, (ii) that within the statement there was an apparent basis to the opinion and (iii) the statement is one that an honest person could have held.

A person claiming defamation can defeat this defence if they can demonstrate that the author of the statement complained about did not hold the opinion.

Per

Just give an example of this defence being used
I believe Bennett thought of using it and was advised to put his house on the market and declare himself homeless

[mercury]

Amaral will win his appeal...good stuff....

[Mr Gray]

Amaral will win his appeal...good stuff....

So you are quoting English libel law to come to the conclusion that amaral will win his not libel case in a Portuguese court .....

[slartibartfast]

So you are quoting English libel law to come to the conclusion that amaral will win his not libel case in a Portuguese court .....

Strange how various supporters have been using English Libel laws to suggest GA is guilty of libel in PT and now his defence in English Libel Law is shown it is suddenly not applicable because the current damages trial is in PT.

[Alice Purjorick]

Strange how various supporters have been using English Libel laws to suggest GA is guilty of libel in PT and now his defence in English Libel Law is shown it is suddenly not applicable because the current damages trial is in PT.

Where I come from it's described as "wanting your bun and your ha'penny" 

[Alfred R Jones]

Strange how various supporters have been using English Libel laws to suggest GA is guilty of libel in PT and now his defence in English Libel Law is shown it is suddenly not applicable because the current damages trial is in PT.

even stranger how most sceptics are adamant this case is nothing whatsoever to do with libel, so what are you on about anyway?