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

[misty]

The judge said the book had never damaged  the search. Not when the writ was issued, not when their PIs were 'investigating', not when SY took over, never, so yet again I'm not sure what your point is misty

Was her view an overall view of a 5 year period or specifically related to the position regarding the lack of police involvement at the time the writ was issued?

[faithlilly]

Was her view an overall view of a 5 year period or specifically related to the position regarding the lack of police involvement at the time the writ was issued?

The lack of police involvement was nothing to do with the book misty so I'm not entirely sure what you mean.

[misty]

The lack of police involvement was nothing to do with the book misty so I'm not entirely sure what you mean.

Did the book not epitomise why there was a lack of police involvement at that particular time & thus emphasize why further searching would prove fruitless?

[faithlilly]

Did the book not epitomise why there was a lack of police involvement at that particular time & thus emphasize why further searching would prove fruitless?

There was a lack of police involvement because the case was archived which had nothing to do with the book or Amaral. I'm f that was the case then Rebelo would be just as culpable.

I think you've got things a little mixed up in your head misty. The judge stated that the book had not damaged the search AT ALL, not simply when the writ was issued. I think you may have to go back to the trial transcripts and read them again as you seem to be rather confused.

[pegasus]

Did they ?

Yes I already gave an example where they clearly stated they were paying
"... we have ... continued to pay for legal representation ... to obtain an injunction banning Mr Amaral from ..." (source: accounts for year 2009-2010 you can read at CH site)

So who do you think was financing their litigation when it wasn't specifically stated that the fund was ?

I don't know who is paying now.

[Alfred R Jones]

There was a lack of police involvement because the case was archived which had nothing to do with the book or Amaral. I'm f that was the case then Rebelo would be just as culpable.

I think you've got things a little mixed up in your head misty. The judge stated that the book had not damaged the search AT ALL, not simply when the writ was issued. I think you may have to go back to the trial transcripts and read them again as you seem to be rather confused.

I believe the actual wording was NOT PROVEN, rather than a categorical rejection that the book had damaged the search.  No doubt you will correct me if I'm wrong....

[G-Unit]

Yes I already gave an example where they clearly stated they were paying
"... we have ... continued to pay for legal representation ... to obtain an injunction banning Mr Amaral from ..." (source: accounts for year 2009-2010 you can read at CH site)I don't know who is paying now.

For the financial year March 2013- March 2014 they paid £ 13,256 for hotels, subsistence and travel. The directors say this was for witnesses to attend the trial in Portugal. The expenditure is justified because 'Amaral's book and video caused vast damage to the search for Madeleine in Portugal'. There was an amount of £ 8,402 for legal fees and expenses which could also relate to the trial, but it doesn't say so.
http://www.mccannfiles.com/id501.html

[Jean-Pierre]

Yes I already gave an example where they clearly stated they were paying
"... we have ... continued to pay for legal representation ... to obtain an injunction banning Mr Amaral from ..." (source: accounts for year 2009-2010 you can read at CH site)I don't know who is paying now.

Your concern over how the McCanns are going to pay their lawyers is very touching.  So let me reassure you that you really do not need to worry. 

[Mr Gray]

For the financial year March 2013- March 2014 they paid £ 13,256 for hotels, subsistence and travel. The directors say this was for witnesses to attend the trial in Portugal. The expenditure is justified because 'Amaral's book and video caused vast damage to the search for Madeleine in Portugal'. There was an amount of £ 8,402 for legal fees and expenses which could also relate to the trial, but it doesn't say so.
http://www.mccannfiles.com/id501.html

the fund is none of your business

[Jean-Pierre]

the fund is none of your business

Not strictly correct.  The fund is in the form of a limited company, and as such members of the public have a legitimate concern as to the financial results as reported.

But it is the responsibility of the directors to run the company, and report accordingly.  Members of the public have no say in this, unless they are shareholders or directors.

[stephen25000]

Your concern over how the McCanns are going to pay their lawyers is very touching.  So let me reassure you that you really do not need to worry.

How would you know ?

[Mr Gray]

the McCcanns have raised this money....Kates book...the libel payouts. there is a lot of talk about freedom on this forum and it seems that's all it is...talk. its up to the mccanns how they spend the fund...as long as they keep within the aims...either mind your own business or inform the relevant authorities

[stephen25000]

the McCcanns have raised this money....Kates book...the libel payouts. there is a lot of talk about freedom on this forum and it seems that's all it is...talk. its up to the mccanns how they spend the fund...as long as they keep within the aims...either mind your own business or inform the relevant authorities

They have raised this money ?

Interesting choice of terms, since their behaviour is the reason this case came to the public attention.

[Mr Gray]

Not strictly correct.  The fund is in the form of a limited company, and as such members of the public have a legitimate concern as to the financial results as reported.

But it is the responsibility of the directors to run the company, and report accordingly.  Members of the public have no say in this, unless they are shareholders or directors.

it is no business of anyone on here...I run a ltd company....that's no ones business either

[stephen25000]

For reference purposes.


https://www.gov.uk/running-a-limited-company