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

[Mr Gray]

'Target was hit, Gonçalo Amaral was convicted'... Marcos Aragão Correia, Leonor Cipriano's Lawyer

is there a credible source for this?

[Eleanor]

'Target was hit, Gonçalo Amaral was convicted'... Marcos Aragão Correia, Leonor Cipriano's Lawyer

And then Amaral lost his case against Correia.

[Carana]

Q: Are you hoping the McCanns will sue you?


A: Yes! (here he gave a Portugese metaphor about a bullfight, something about having to first entice the bull into the middle of the ring before the fight can start).

http://www.gerrymccannsblogs.co.uk/press/25MAY9/GONCALO_AMARAL_05_05_2009.htm

[faithlilly]

Q: Are you hoping the McCanns will sue you?


A: Yes! (here he gave a Portugese metaphor about a bullfight, something about having to first entice the bull into the middle of the ring before the fight can start).

http://www.gerrymccannsblogs.co.uk/press/25MAY9/GONCALO_AMARAL_05_05_2009.htm

Perhaps he assumed they didn't have enough money to sue him ? I'm sure he never imagined that they would stoop so low as to use the fund set up to find their daughter to bankroll their reputation litigation against him.

[Benice]

Perhaps he assumed they didn't have enough money to sue him ? I'm sure he never imagined that they would stoop so low as to use the fund set up to find their daughter to bankroll their reputation litigation against him.

How low do you think they stooped Faith  -  when they put hundreds of thousands of £s of their own money into the fund and gave thousands of £s to charity  - money which they were perfectly entitled to put into their own private bank accounts had they so wished?

[Jean-Pierre]

Perhaps he assumed they didn't have enough money to sue him ? I'm sure he never imagined that they would stoop so low as to use the fund set up to find their daughter to bankroll their reputation litigation against him.

So he was bluffing then, in your opinion?

[stephen25000]

How low do you think they stooped Faith  -  when they put hundreds of thousands of £s of their own money into the fund and gave thousands of £s to charity  - money which they were perfectly entitled to put into their own private bank accounts had they so wished?

Ah the 'poor me' mccann mantra.

Entitled to benice ?

Why should the mccanns be entitled to anything ?

Their behaviour triggered this whole case .

By the way , what happened to the money from the serialization rights in the sun ?

The mccanns also got into financial difficulties very quickly after Madeleine disappeared, hence the fund was used to pay 2 mortgage payments, before it was repaid. Before that, both were working, now only gerry mccann is.

Mmm.

[faithlilly]

How low do you think they stooped Faith  -  when they put hundreds of thousands of £s of their own money into the fund and gave thousands of £s to charity  - money which they were perfectly entitled to put into their own private bank accounts had they so wished?

it is not their 'own money' if it has been raised by telling potential donators that the money is going to the fund as it was with the book. Looking at their own Facebook page you can see how many people bought the book because they assumed they were aiding the search for a little girl.

If the McCanns are being honest and transparent about the money being donated why isn't there one single solitary word about paying libel lawyers in the fund's aims ?

[Benice]

it is not their 'own money' if it has been raised by telling potential donators that the money is going to the fund as it was with the book. Looking at their own Facebook page you can see how many people bought the book because they assumed they were aiding the search for a little girl.

If the McCanns are being honest and transparent about the money being donated why isn't there one single solitary word about paying libel lawyers in the fund's aims ?

As a donator myself and also someone who bought  Kate's book  - I have no objection whatsoever in their using the fund to expose the lies, half truths, lies by omission and spiteful innuendo made against them and their friends in Amarals book.   I'm pleased to know I helped in some small way. 

Strange how some people defend Amarals right to defend HIS reputation and to sue those who he thinks have besmirched it  - but object to the victims of his book having the same right to defend theirs and also their genuine belief that his book damaged the search for their daughter.

Where does it say in the Fund that the compensation for libel awarded to the McCanns and their friends i.e. some £850,000 must be put into the fund?   

[Alice Purjorick]

As a donator myself and also someone who bought  Kate's book  - I have no objection whatsoever in their using the fund to expose the lies, half truths, lies by omission and spiteful innuendo made against them and their friends in Amarals book.   I'm pleased to know I helped in some small way. 

Strange how some people defend Amarals right to defend HIS reputation and to sue those who he thinks have besmirched it  - but object to the victims of his book having the same right to defend theirs and also their genuine belief that his book damaged the search for their daughter.

Where does it say in the Fund that the compensation for libel awarded to the McCanns and their friends i.e. some £850,000 must be put into the fund?

It doesn't but once the money is in the fund it no longer belongs to the Drs McCann and their friends, it belongs to the limited company and may only be spent how the articles of association and so on say.

[Carana]

It doesn't but once the money is in the fund it no longer belongs to the Drs McCann and their friends, it belongs to the limited company and may only be spent how the articles of association and so on say.

The main purpose is to help find Madeleine. A former head of the investigation insists that she is dead, without proof, at every opportunity and is therefore not worth searching for.

The fact that empirical proof of the extent of damage couldn't be proven to the court's satisfaction is neither here nor there.

[stephen25000]

The main purpose is to help find Madeleine. A former head of the investigation insists that she is dead, without proof, at every opportunity and is therefore not worth searching for.

The fact that empirical proof of the extent of damage couldn't be proven to the court's satisfaction is neither here nor there.

I don't accept that, bearing in mind how little was spent on the search, which from memory is about 13%.

[Lace]

it is not their 'own money' if it has been raised by telling potential donators that the money is going to the fund as it was with the book. Looking at their own Facebook page you can see how many people bought the book because they assumed they were aiding the search for a little girl.

If the McCanns are being honest and transparent about the money being donated why isn't there one single solitary word about paying libel lawyers in the fund's aims ?

The fund states that the money was to be used in the search for Madeleine and to help the parents.

If someone comes along and writes a book saying the child is dead and the parents are responsible for hiding her body.   Then the money [as it is there to help the family]   can use it in order to stop the accusations being made as the public will assume the child is dead and there is no need to continue to search for her or give any information regarding where she may be.

[Benice]

The main purpose is to help find Madeleine. A former head of the investigation insists that she is dead, without proof, at every opportunity and is therefore not worth searching for.

The fact that empirical proof of the extent of damage couldn't be proven to the court's satisfaction is neither here nor there.

There must be loads of people who read his book and as a result of doing that agreed with him - especially as he deliberately left out the fact that he'd never met Kate or spoken to either Kate or Gerry.  Those readers thought they were getting a first hand account - when nothing could be further from the truth.

Unfortunately as there was no way to quantify the numbers who were convinced by his book - then proving it was not possible and so was not accepted by the court.

[stephen25000]

There must be loads of people who read his book and as a result of doing that agreed with him - especially as he deliberately left out the fact that he'd never met Kate or spoken to either Kate or Gerry.  Those readers thought they were getting a first hand account - when nothing could be further from the truth.

Unfortunately as there was no way to quantify the numbers who were convinced by his book - then proving it was not possible and so was not accepted by the court.

Then why should people accept kate mccanns version of events in her book ?