I believe that it is irrefutable that Amaral viewed and used Madeleine McCann as a cash cow after botching the inquiry into her disappearance which ultimately ensured the abandonment of even a pretence of looking for her with the archiving of the process.
Upholding the finding that this anonymous couple whose media exposure was as a direct result of what is described in law as "the incident" resulted in them becoming "public figures" whose "notoriety" made them and their family fair game as "they had inevitably and knowingly laid themselves open to close scrutiny of their every word and deed." https://hudoc.echr.coe.int/eng#{%22itemid%22:[%22002-13798%22]}
To me that is illogical ~ unless someone can explain alternatives to how one is supposed to publicise the search for a missing person (that is inclusive of the fact a person is missing) without recourse to the media.
Sadly, imo, I think the McCanns were seen, not least in the eyes of Amaral & PJ, to be using the media to promote Madeleine's disappearance only as abduction almost from the beginning. Rightly or wrongly, I think the courts considered Amaral's opinion of events, via his book based on PJ files, carried equal weight in the absence of proven truth.
The McCanns had little choice other than to use the media if they were to stand any chance of finding Madeleine. We are fully aware of the legal restrictions placed on PJ in relation to media and secrecy but many people, including the McCanns, found ways to circumvent both this and libel laws irrespective of the nature of their opinions.
Having followed Nicola Bulley's case it's apparent what harm publicity and free speech can be done to a victim, their family and the police personnel who have the unenviable task of investigating someone's disappearance. Words shouldn't be more important than actions but we seem to be moving towards a society in which there are ever-increasing repercussions for expressing our viewpoint.
