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

[ferryman]

Mention of "ex-parte" brings Alice out in a cold sweat, for some reason.

No clue why.

[Jean-Pierre]

Mention of "ex-parte" brings Alice out in a cold sweat, for some reason.

No clue why.

To be perfectly honest, it brings me out in palpitations.  Whilst I accept it has its uses, its a device which goes against the whole idea of justice. 

It is at best a short term measure, and no substitute for an actual trial. 

Which is why appeals are often successful.    As in this case. 

[Montclair]

The Daily Express has published today on page 21 a clarification regarding the damages trial. I can only write transcript of what the apology stated:

"Amplifications and Clarifications

Gonçalo Amaral -Correction

On the 29 April 2015 we published a headline on the front page which said "Maddy detective did lie about death cover up claim". We would like to make it clear that there was no determination by the court that Mr. Amaral lied. In fact the court ruled that Mr. Amaral had breached the McCanns' right to reputation and ordered him to pay damages to them."

[Alice Purjorick]

Mention of "ex-parte" brings Alice out in a cold sweat, for some reason.

No clue why.

Not a cold sweat rather fits of laughter at the way it is drawn by some posters like a Colt 45 in a western movie in the belief others don't know what it means. Or maybe Excalibur

[Alice Purjorick]

I assume you are not conflating two different cases.

The ex parte injunction was, and subsequent appeals, was one case.  The supreme court simply overturned the ex parte injunction and restored the status quo. 

The libel trial over Amaral's book, documentary etc was a completely separate case, and the outcome (damages of E 500k, interest no further sales of the book, video etc).   

So there is no question of any ruling being "overturned".

Sorry to burst your bubble. 

 

That's OK. No problem 

[Alice Purjorick]

The Daily Express has published today on page 21 a clarification regarding the damages trial. I can only write transcript of what the apology stated:

"Amplifications and Clarifications

Gonçalo Amaral -Correction

On the 29 April 2015 we published a headline on the front page which said "Maddy detective did lie about death cover up claim". We would like to make it clear that there was no determination by the court that Mr. Amaral lied. In fact the court ruled that Mr. Amaral had breached the McCanns' right to reputation and ordered him to pay damages to them."

If Sr Amaral did not lie why do you think the court penalised him?

[G-Unit]

The Daily Express has published today on page 21 a clarification regarding the damages trial. I can only write transcript of what the apology stated:

"Amplifications and Clarifications

Gonçalo Amaral -Correction

On the 29 April 2015 we published a headline on the front page which said "Maddy detective did lie about death cover up claim". We would like to make it clear that there was no determination by the court that Mr. Amaral lied. In fact the court ruled that Mr. Amaral had breached the McCanns' right to reputation and ordered him to pay damages to them."

Well I never!

[Jean-Pierre]

The Daily Express has published today on page 21 a clarification regarding the damages trial. I can only write transcript of what the apology stated:

"Amplifications and Clarifications

Gonçalo Amaral -Correction

On the 29 April 2015 we published a headline on the front page which said "Maddy detective did lie about death cover up claim". We would like to make it clear that there was no determination by the court that Mr. Amaral lied. In fact the court ruled that Mr. Amaral had breached the McCanns' right to reputation and ordered him to pay damages to them."

That is a good find Montclair.  with the usual "red top" caveat, it is interesting to note that the court ruled on the McCanns right to reputation, which means of course the trial was a defamation one "in this instance Libel".   

And rather gives the lie to those who argue that this was NOT a libel trial. 

[Mr Gray]

The Daily Express has published today on page 21 a clarification regarding the damages trial. I can only write transcript of what the apology stated:

"Amplifications and Clarifications

Gonçalo Amaral -Correction

On the 29 April 2015 we published a headline on the front page which said "Maddy detective did lie about death cover up claim". We would like to make it clear that there was no determination by the court that Mr. Amaral lied. In fact the court ruled that Mr. Amaral had breached the McCanns' right to reputation and ordered him to pay damages to them."

Easy mistake to make
So it was another case he was found guilty of lying
This one was about libel

[Mr Gray]

I think the whole deal is pretty straightforward.
Try this angle:
In no country can a lower court overturn the ruling of a higher court. Once that is accepted things start to drop into place.

 

Couldn't help it

[Brietta]

That is a good find Montclair.  with the usual "red top" caveat, it is interesting to note that the court ruled on the McCanns right to reputation, which means of course the trial was a defamation one "in this instance Libel".   

And rather gives the lie to those who argue that this was NOT a libel trial.

There is no doubt about it in the Portuguese press.  It seems only foreigners posting on fora don't understand why the Drs McCann have been awarded damages.


Justiça portuguesa condena inspetor do caso Madeleine por difamação
Gonçalo Amaral publicou livro onde acusava pais por morte de menina.
Madeleine desapareceu em maio de 2007 de quarto de hotel em Portugal.

Portuguese Justice condemns Madeleine case inspector for defamation
Gonçalo Amaral published book in which he accused parents for girl's death. 
Madeleine disappeared in May 2007 hotel room in Portugal.

http://g1.globo.com/mundo/noticia/2015/04/justica-portuguesa-condena-inspetor-do-caso-madeleine-por-difamacao.htm

[slartibartfast]

There is no doubt about it in the Portuguese press.  It seems only foreigners posting on fora don't understand why the Drs McCann have been awarded damages.


Justiça portuguesa condena inspetor do caso Madeleine por difamação
Gonçalo Amaral publicou livro onde acusava pais por morte de menina.
Madeleine desapareceu em maio de 2007 de quarto de hotel em Portugal.

Portuguese Justice condemns Madeleine case inspector for defamation
Gonçalo Amaral published book in which he accused parents for girl's death.
Madeleine disappeared in May 2007 hotel room in Portugal.

http://g1.globo.com/mundo/noticia/2015/04/justica-portuguesa-condena-inspetor-do-caso-madeleine-por-difamacao.htm

We would like to make it clear that there was no determination by the court that Mr. Amaral lied.

[Alfred R Jones]

If Amaral didn't lie, then he told the truth, yes?  So, it's true that Madeleine died in the apartment is it?

[Alice Purjorick]

The judge uses the words "hypothesis" and "thesis" quite liberally when referring to Sr Amaral's book in her judgement.

[Alfred R Jones]

The judge uses the words "hypothesis" and "thesis" quite liberally when referring to Sr Amaral's book in her judgement.

That's as maybe.  Amaral stated it was a fact that Madeleine died in the apartment however.

So, in Portugal I can hypothesise in a best selling book that the Prime Minister is a paedophile and make all sorts of un proven allegations about him / her and not be called a liar can I?