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

[stephen25000]

Interesting that the media reported the judgement as a huge success for the McCanns - are they all ignorant of the facts?  Or are they all part of Team McCann, or what?

Well, there's a surprise. The UK media has NOT questioned the mccanns version of events since the express libel trial, regardless of the fact, that abduction scenario is at ground zero. Mind you, they have made more people aware of the other possibilities in the meantime, including Amaral's book.

So how many points did the mccanns FAIL to prove, e.g. the book did not impede the search ?

[Jean-Pierre]

Read the judgement

I have of course read the judgement. Which is why I am puzzled about your statement that the case was a "car crash" for the McCanns.

Their claims met in full as far as Amaral and two of the defendants are concerned. 

If it was such a car crash, why did Amaral need a fund to cover the costs of his appeal?



 

[mercury]

Interesting that the media reported the judgement as a huge success for the McCanns - are they all ignorant of the facts?  Or are they all part of Team McCann, or what?

No it is not interesting at all, its just the same ole...

[stephen25000]

I have of course read the judgement. Which is why I am puzzled about your statement that the case was a "car crash" for the McCanns.

Their claims met in full as far as Amaral and two of the defendants are concerned. 

If it was such a car crash, why did Amaral need a fund to cover the costs of his appeal?





 

Which claims fell then ?

The mccanns were unable to prove several critical claims .

[mercury]

I have of course read the judgement. Which is why I am puzzled about your statement that the case was a "car crash" for the McCanns.

Their claims met in full as far as Amaral and two of the defendants are concerned. 

If it was such a car crash, why did Amaral need a fund to cover the costs of his appeal?



 

Claims NOT met in full JP

[Alfred R Jones]

They accepted Team McCann's statement that 'it was about harming the search' and none of them pointed out that the judge found that point not proven, so take your pick. Ignorant, scared of Carter Ruck, supportive, could be any of them given the state of our media these days.

if the judgement really was a car crash verdict for the McCanns and the media had reported it as such, how would that have been a) unsupportive or b) subject to a potential legal threat?

[ferryman]

Neither Amaral's book nor video will see light of day again and Amaral isn't appealing that.

Amaral has been ordered to pay the McCanns compensation and he is appealing that.

True that a book published after the investigation was archived was deemed not to have harmed the investigation into Madeleine's disappearance.

No real surprise there

That Amaral is appealing clearly indicates he is not happy.

That the McCanns are not clearly indicates they are (at least with the outcome of the trial)

[Jean-Pierre]

Claims NOT met in full JP

Oh dear, are you really such an innocent in the way of the world, and especially the legal world?

In a complex civil case where there are numerous claims, it is vanishingly rare for all of the claims to be met in full.  (In cases which are so clear cut, then it is usually settled out of court.)

So if your definition of "car crash" is "all claims not met in full" then best of luck to you. 

In fairness, I do realise that it is your mission to support Amaral in every possible way, but maybe try to keep somewhere within the realms of reality?  This is not Haverns or some of the other places - it is a forum where all shades of opinion are promoted. 



 

[ferryman]

if the judgement really was a car crash verdict for the McCanns and the media had reported it as such, how would that have been a) unsupportive or b) subject to a potential legal threat?

Exactly.

They would have been reporting "the truth" (as G-Unit sees it) ....

[stephen25000]

Neither Amaral's book nor video will see light of day again and Amaral isn't appealing that.

Amaral has been ordered to pay the McCanns compensation and he is appealing that.

True that a book published after the investigation was archived was deemed not to have harmed the investigation into Madeleine's disappearance.

No real surprise there

That Amaral is appealing clearly indicates he is not happy.

That the McCanns are not clearly indicates they are (at least with the outcome of the trial)

You do exist in dreamland.

The book is already on the internet as is the video.

The mccanns have yet to get a penny.

Meanwhile let's what John comes up with. *&*%£

[Jean-Pierre]

You do exist in dreamland.

The book is already on the internet as is the video.

The mccanns have yet to get a penny.

Meanwhile let's what John comes up with. *&*%£

Er.... Right.  The secret stuff that he cant reveal on a public forum?   

Well, I suppose anything to give you "hope" in these dark days, eh?

[mercury]

Oh dear, are you really such an innocent in the way of the world, and especially the legal world?

In a complex civil case where there are numerous claims, it is vanishingly rare for all of the claims to be met in full.  (In cases which are so clear cut, then it is usually settled out of court.)

So if your definition of "car crash" is "all claims not met in full" then best of luck to you. 

In fairness, I do realise that it is your mission to support Amaral in every possible way, but maybe try to keep somewhere within the realms of reality?  This is not Haverns or some of the other places - it is a forum where all shades of opinion are promoted.

Oh dear....if you have issues take them up where they belong and dont use me as a punchbag, ta, your last paragraph is laughable at best...get a grip

[Jean-Pierre]

Oh dear....if you have issues take them up where they belong and dont use me as a punchbag, ta, your last paragraph is laughable at best...get a grip

Nobody is using you as a punchbag.  Least of all me.

When you make stupid statements such as "the case of a "car crash" for the McCanns and are then unable to respond to a reasonable request for an explanation (barring "read the judgement"), then you can expect a bit of good natured mickey taking. 

If I have hurt your feelings, then I sincerely apologise

[G-Unit]

if the judgement really was a car crash verdict for the McCanns and the media had reported it as such, how would that have been a) unsupportive or b) subject to a potential legal threat?

I never said that the verdict was a car crash for the McCanns. I was referring to the fact that they didn't challenge the McCann's 'spinned' version of their win. Not one reported the truth of the verdict; that the McCann's won damages for themselves, but not for their children or for the 'harm to the search'. Team McCann may have been telling the truth as they saw it when they said the case was about the harm caused to the search and the libeling of the children, but that's not why they won a pay out.

[Mr Gray]

I never said that the verdict was a car crash for the McCanns. I was referring to the fact that they didn't challenge the McCann's 'spinned' version of their win. Not one reported the truth of the verdict; that the McCann's won damages for themselves, but not for their children or for the 'harm to the search'. Team McCann may have been telling the truth as they saw it when they said the case was about the harm caused to the search and the libeling of the children, but that's not why they won a pay out.

I don't think libelling the children was part of the claim.....much as you don't want to accept it...the verdict was a resounding victory for the McCanns and a disaster for amaral