As you are something of a pedant when it comes to the written word (particularly when that word is written by a member of the McCann supporter community) surely you can see that there is some practical difference between the following two assertions:
The judge stated that the book had not damaged the search AT ALL
The judge stated that damage to the search caused by the book was UNPROVEN.
The words are different but the practical outcome was to toss the claim out. So debate all you like about what she said, her judgement left no doubt what she meant.
The proceedings were about the terms of the writ, which if we are to believe the full judgment did not mention "search".
The issue being judged was :
“The 3rd claimant [MM] was deprived of the just and appropriate investigation of her disappearance”. For which damages in the sum of five hundred thousand Euro were sought.
The ruling was:
“It was not proven that because of the defendant Goncalo Amaral's statements in the book, the documentary and the interview with the Correio da Manha, the Judicial Police had ceased to collect information and to investigate the disappearance of Madeleine McCann”
The consequence was:
“To fully dismiss the requests, made in the same action, by the claimants MADELEINE MCCANN, SEAN MICHAEL MCCANN and AMELIE EVE MCCANN against the defendant GONCALO AMARAL and of those claims acquit the defendant”. Do not pass go do not collect 700 grand.
