An interesting question has arisen elsewhere. Do members think the Kate & Gerry McCann v Amaral & Others libel case would have had a different outcome if pecuniary damages in the sum of €1.2 millioon hadn't been sought?
They won their case.
The appeal court justices didn't agree but I doubt very much whether the money had much if anything to do with that.
If I recall correctly, Portuguese courts had never previously considered awarding such a high amount in damages which calls into question the basic competency of the court of first instance imo. And especially so given, as you have correctly pointed out, that both the Appeal Court and the Supreme Court found the decision wanting and so overturned it.
Or more likely IMO the competency of the appeal and SCcourts
They won their case.
The appeal court justices didn't agree but I doubt very much whether the money had much if anything to do with that.
Hardly Dave, the upper courts are supposed to be the superior courts and as such determine precedences.
They won their case.
The appeal court justices didn't agree but I doubt very much whether the money had much if anything to do with that.
I think the fact that McCanns were demanding such significant damages which would be enough to bankrupt their oppsition, probably annoyed the court but it wouldn't have made any difference to the outcome as judges use facts and legal precidents not their own opinions.Did you read my post.. The McCann's may have lost in Portugal but may well win in Europe
Davel the McCanns lost the case. To claim otherwise is to be sadly mistaken.
This is all in my own opinion of course.
Did you read my post.. The McCann's may have lost in Portugal but may well win in Europe
Did you read my post.. The McCann's may have lost in Portugal but may well win in EuropeWho pays the court fees?
I think it will depend on how our access to the ECHR is affected by Brexit.You need to do a bit more research.....the ECHR is not limited to the EU
Did you read my post.. The McCann's may have lost in Portugal but may well win in Europe
If they win at the EHCR that wouldn't be against Amaral though would it so they would still need to pay the court fees for all the portuguese legal action I am sure.
I thought they had already lost at the highest court in Portugal so they lost and that cant be reversed. They are trying to take Portugals courts to court arent they and this is on technical points not any book banning reasons AFAIK
You need to do a bit more research.....the ECHR is not limited to the EU
https://www.theguardian.com/law/2018/jun/18/brussels-seeks-to-tie-uk-to-european-human-rights-court-after-brexit
Try reading the article
I have perhaps you should ?It's Portugal the mccanns case is against....what difference will the position of England make to that...LOL
It's Portugal the mccanns case is against....what difference will the position of England make to that...LOL
Oh dear ! @)(++(*
Do you really no understand that simple fact...for those who do understand you are making a cooling your self
@)(++(* Cooling yourself ?
An interesting question has arisen elsewhere. Do members think the Kate & Gerry McCann v Amaral & Others libel case would have had a different outcome if pecuniary damages in the sum of €1.2 millioon hadn't been sought?
An interesting question has arisen elsewhere. Do members think the Kate & Gerry McCann v Amaral & Others libel case would have had a different outcome if pecuniary damages in the sum of €1.2 millioon hadn't been sought?
Do you really no understand that simple fact...for those who do understand you are making a fool of your selfModerator comment: "you are making a fool of your self" That comes every close to personal insult - take care.
Moderator comment: "you are making a fool of your self" That comes every close to personal insult - take care.
Yet no objection to mistaken saying that supporters fawn at the McCanns and look on them as dieties.Maybe John will do the deed later. To me saying "saying that supporters fawn at the McCanns and look on them as deities" is slightly over my head to work out whether it breaks any rules.
I found that personally insulting and reported it as such and responded to her post indicating my feeling that her post was goading and insulting but yet the the post remains?
An interesting question has arisen elsewhere. Do members think the Kate & Gerry McCann v Amaral & Others libel case would have had a different outcome if pecuniary damages in the sum of €1.2 millioon hadn't been sought?
Moderator comment: "you are making a fool of your self" That comes every close to personal insult - take care.
A bit of bedtime reading on Article 8.
https://www.echr.coe.int/Documents/Guide_Art_8_ENG.pdf
I'm not sure that any of the summaries of rulings on cases cited in pp. 30-31 correspond to the circumstances of this one.
On the other hand, if accepted, it might be an interplay between Articles 6, 8 and 10 (IMO).
Whatever the outcome - if any - may be, I don't see why Amaral wouldn't have had his dosh released by now unless there are claimants unrelated to this case.
125. In Egill Einarsson v. Iceland, a well-known figure in Iceland had been the subject of an offensive
comment on Instagram, an online picture-sharing application, in which he had been called a “rapist”
alongside a photograph. The Court held that a comment of this kind was capable of constituting
interference with the applicant’s private life in so far as it had attained a certain level of seriousness
(§ 52). It pointed out that Article 8 was to be interpreted to mean that even where they had
prompted heated debate on account of their behaviour and public comments, public figures should
not have to tolerate being publicly accused of violent criminal acts without such statements being
supported by facts (§ 52).
from everything I have read accusations not supported by evidence contravene article 8...the archiving report said no evidence of any crime by the McCanns
Yet the SC saw it differently.
Correct.... And the ECHR can correct the SC.... as they have done twice in the past few months
125. In Egill Einarsson v. Iceland, a well-known figure in Iceland had been the subject of an offensive
comment on Instagram, an online picture-sharing application, in which he had been called a “rapist”
alongside a photograph. The Court held that a comment of this kind was capable of constituting
interference with the applicant’s private life in so far as it had attained a certain level of seriousness
(§ 52). It pointed out that Article 8 was to be interpreted to mean that even where they had
prompted heated debate on account of their behaviour and public comments, public figures should
not have to tolerate being publicly accused of violent criminal acts without such statements being
supported by facts (§ 52).
from everything I have read accusations not supported by evidence contravene article 8...the archiving report said no evidence of any crime by the McCanns
125. In Egill Einarsson v. Iceland, a well-known figure in Iceland had been the subject of an offensive
comment on Instagram, an online picture-sharing application, in which he had been called a “rapist”
alongside a photograph. The Court held that a comment of this kind was capable of constituting
interference with the applicant’s private life in so far as it had attained a certain level of seriousness
(§ 52). It pointed out that Article 8 was to be interpreted to mean that even where they had
prompted heated debate on account of their behaviour and public comments, public figures should
not have to tolerate being publicly accused of violent criminal acts without such statements being
supported by facts (§ 52).
from everything I have read accusations not supported by evidence contravene article 8...the archiving report said no evidence of any crime by the McCanns
You may have noticed faith tried to lecture me insisting that Brexit might affect the McCann's appeal to the, ECHR..... not realising that this, would, have no effect at, all as, the case, was, against portugal...
As GA was writing about what the investigation thought, the facts are not to do with the case but the investigation. IMO
They can but I doubt they will uphold the human rights of parents who flagrantly violated their own children's right to be properly cared for. Maddie had her most basic right as a child violated by those who had a duty of care to properly look after her.
As for the thread theme, I think the upper courts might have viewed the case differently had the McCanns not been so greedy for money.
The accusers in that case were not investigating officers in the case against the man were they? So it seems to be based on something different, a member of the public accusing someone of being a rapist. Amaral has a police investigation to base his claims on and his experience of working within it. He also never accused anyone of a violent criminal act either.
Shall we wait and see ?
Egill Einarsson v. Iceland
7 November 2017
This case concerned the complaint by a well-known blogger about a Supreme Court
ruling, which found that he had not been defamed by the words “f..k you rapist
b........” used in an Instagram post about him. Prosecutors had just before dismissed
rape and sexual offence accusations against him. The applicant complained that the
Supreme Court judgment meant that he could be called a rapist without being charged
or convicted of such a crime and without being able to defend himself.
The Court held that there had been a violation of Article 8
Here is another one showing that the ECHR do not agree with someone being labelled as a criminal...as amaral has done
then you doubt wrong imo...the ECHR will apply the law as it applies to the case in question
its defamation pure and simple....I have posted other cases...
As the case is unsolved and as the SC have cast doubt on the parents involvement I doubt the ECHR will want to involve itself.
Only if untrue...that has still to be determined.
Only if untrue...that has still to be determined.
you dont seem to understand the case I quoted.....your post is 100% wrong
nowhere in the investigation did it say there was proof maddie died in the apartmernt and the parents staged an abduction
Were you there?Was Amaral?
Were you there?
It’s all academic unless the case is lodged with the ECHR. Do we have any evidence that it has ?
Only if untrue...that has still to be determined.
I can’t believe I have to do but
evidence
ˈɛvɪd(ə)ns/Submit
noun
1.
the available body of facts or information indicating whether a belief or proposition is true or valid.
"the study finds little evidence of overt discrimination"
synonyms: proof, confirmation, verification, substantiation, corroboration, affirmation, authentication, attestation, documentation;
I think that covers a case number and/ photocopies of papers lodged.
So do you have a case number or paperwork?
No but I have evidence
Was Amaral?
LOL....i think you need to read the ECHR judgements.....
I think you do. You keep posting stuff about cases where bloggers post defamatory statements. Not people involved.
You have nothing. Do you have proof or evidence that a case has been lodged by the McCanns ? A simple yes or no will do.
If you read the ECHR judgements you will see that the onus is on the defamer to show it is true...what is in question is does amaral ahve the right to accuse the mccanns of the crimes he has....looking at other judgements it would appear he hasnt
I think it is you who need to do a bit of reading. Amaral set out a theory based on the evidence available to the police, he has carefully avoided making accusations.
I think it is you who need to do a bit of reading. Amaral set out a theory based on the evidence available to the police, he has carefully avoided making accusations.
125. In Egill Einarsson v. Iceland, a well-known figure in Iceland had been the subject of an offensive
comment on Instagram, an online picture-sharing application, in which he had been called a “rapist”
alongside a photograph. The Court held that a comment of this kind was capable of constituting
interference with the applicant’s private life in so far as it had attained a certain level of seriousness
(§ 52). It pointed out that Article 8 was to be interpreted to mean that even where they had
prompted heated debate on account of their behaviour and public comments, public figures should
not have to tolerate being publicly accused of violent criminal acts without such statements being
supported by facts (§ 52).
from everything I have read accusations not supported by evidence contravene article 8...the archiving report said no evidence of any crime by the McCanns
I saw that, Davel.
However, there's an issue. What are the facts? Whatever happens to be recorded in the police files? Apparently so, in the McCann case as that's what the judges drew upon, when they existed, while also saying that it wasn't within the remit to test whether such "facts" were true or not.
From what I have read it should have been. Thee re also points in the book and doc that are not in the files...and then we have the archiving report stating no evidence of any crime by the mcCanns...taht is also a fact in the files.
again...from what I have read amaral could be criticised for not applying any balance in his statements
You will also remember Gerry was prevented from contesting the facts...in all the cases Ihave sen the ECHR are interested in the validity of the facts
The lawsuit states: "Madeleine has been deprived of the possibility of a fair and adequate investigation into her disappearance, putting her moral and physical integrity at serious risk."
It says Gerry and Kate have been "totally destroyed from a moral, social, ethical, emotional and family point of view, beyond the pain that the absence of their eldest daughter causes them".
Those are the facts that the McCanns should have been concerned with and IMO they failed badly.
you have your opinion but thats all it is...an opinion...its my opinion that the SC failed in ther judgement...as they have done before
If you serve a writ upon someone then it is up to you to prove that the claim in the writ are true. As far as I can see the writ doesn’t mention the accuracy of the book.
then lets see the writ.....
what we know for certain is the SC judgement was concerned with the balance of the respective rights of the mccanns and amaral...and basically nothing else. it would therefore make sense that is what the action will deal with
its defamation pure and simple IMO....I have posted other cases...
Defamation is "the action of damaging the good reputation of someone; slander or libel.'
The McCanns themselves courted the press and made it known publicly they went out leaving 3 small children alone at night, they damaged their own characters.
Defamation can also be described and 'muckracking' or 'malicious gossip'. Amaral's book was based on an official investigation that he and his superiors were involved in - so it cannot in any way be defined as 'gossip' of any kind. This is not the same as a private citizen basing accusations on their own opinion.
How you can think the Supreme court failed to understand these facts is beyond me.
I disagree and have posted cases ti support my view
No you haven’t IMO. You have select Media and Blogger cases.
No you haven’t IMO. You have select Media and Blogger cases.
I think it is you who need to do a bit of reading. Amaral set out a theory based on the evidence available to the police, he has carefully avoided making accusations.
What evidence?Good question.
What evidence?
You are kidding right? Evidence is everything the police found out about Maddie's disappearance, the movements and activities of everyone who was there that night, the men seen carrying a young girl by other witnesses, the crime scene investigation of the apartment, the tracker dogs, the CSI and EVRD inspections etc etc...
Evidence can point different ways at different times as an investigation develops. It is correct that Amaral was removed from the investigation before he could complete his enquiries, changing the lead investigator is always a bad move. It sent the wrong message to those detectives already working the case.
You are kidding right? Evidence is everything the police found out about Maddie's disappearance, the movements and activities of everyone who was there that night, the men seen carrying a young girl by other witnesses, the crime scene investigation of the apartment, the tracker dogs, the CSI and EVRD inspections etc etc...
Evidence can point different ways at different times as an investigation develops. It is correct that Amaral was removed from the investigation before he could complete his enquiries, changing the lead investigator is always a bad move. It sent the wrong message to those detectives already working the case.
Look again... The last one I quoted was a newspaper article
I wonder when newspapers stopped being part of the media?
There was no evidence found against the McCann's.
Who said that? insufficient evidence=not enough. This is what has been pointed out.
the archiving report said no evidence of any crime
pedro de Carmo says theres no evidence against the mccanns
the archiving report said no evidence of any crime
pedro de Carmo says theres no evidence against the mccanns
Yes as I said. No evidence of a crime does not = no evidence. It means not enough of the evidence to prove a 'criminal act'.
We are going in circles again. and you seem to be changing the subject.
no evidence means ..no evidence...and if that person was tried they would be found not guilty...I wouldn't guarantee that in Portugal IMO.
I wouldn't guarantee that in Portugal IMO.
on that we agreeOpinions don't count for much remember.
Opinions don't count for much remember.
my opinion counts to me...and to those that know meDo you keep a star chart for yourself too?
Do you keep a star chart for yourself too?
I dont need a chart...I am a super starI'm now regretting to egging you on. Egg on my face.
I'm now regretting to egging you on. Egg on my face.
I dont need a chart...I am a super star
I dont need a chart...I am a super starMaybe you could try and kayak across the Tasman Sea! https://www.stuff.co.nz/national/105168174/Kiwi-Scott-Donaldson-reaches-Taranaki-the-first-person-to-kayak-the-Tasman-solo he is my super star today.
Who said that? insufficient evidence=not enough. This is what has been pointed out.
What insufficient evidence? There was no evidence. That is why the McCann's are not suspects, SY say they are not suspects and so do the Portuguese.
There was not enough evidence - not no evidence.
As you should no they were not cleared - of any involvement.
Then why are they not suspects?not enough evidence.
Then why are they not suspects?
Then why are they not suspects?
Did you believe Olegario de Sousa when he said the McCanns were not suspects? Why do you think he said that when he must have known it wasn’t true ? Do you think SY/PJ may be playing the same game ?Are the McCanns suspects? Please give us the evidence for your answer.
The McCanns were not suspects......we were told they were not suspects......right up until they were.Is that your evidence? LOL.
The McCann's, were not suspects, right up to when the, PJ thought they had found, evidence, against them.....but they hadn't...
But they were suspects, immaterial of the surrounding circumstances, and we were told they weren't. Why do you think that was ?Because the PJ didn't understand the evidence
Eddie alerted to Kates top and checked trousers, the very same trousers she wore a couple of days after Madeleine went missing. So, she either washed them after being in contact with a dead body, or she didn't wash them and wore them even though she had been in contact with a dead body which I find unbelievable. Or they were clean out of the wardrobe which makes me wonder how did the cadaver scent get on them if they were among clean washing?
What are the odds of three garments being place next to each other being alerted to by Eddie? Garments that came out of the box one after the other?
What are the odds of finding a speck of blood under a tile, yet nothing in the grout?
Because the PJ didn't understand the evidence
They may not be official suspects, but in my opinion, they will always be suspect.
But they were suspects even though we were told that they weren't. Who's to say that's not what's happening now ?Who is to say? Who is to say it is happening now? It's pure speculation on your part, and just because it happened once before it does not follow that it is happening again, no matter how fervently you wish it to be so.
It doesn't really matter what a few posters on the net feel though is it
The McCanns were not suspects......we were told they were not suspects......right up until they were.And even then they got it wrong. Well it was important to test them for parents can be involved, but they had no evidence against them, other than a few minor discrepancies in their statements.
Cadaver odour cannot be removed by domestic washing.I'm sure it can.
It doesn’t matter what anyone thinks except SY/PJ.Hopefully what they think is based on evidence.
Hopefully what they think is based on evidence.
Cadaver odour cannot be removed by domestic washing.
Any answer would be pure speculation.
So are you saying Kate could have washed the trousers she wore when in contact with a dead Madeleine? When would this have taken place? Kate was wearing those trousers when she did her appeal, just a few days after Madeleine disappeared. The days when she would have been with the police, distraught after finding Madeleine missing, so she stopped to wash her trousers you think? Why not just wear a different pair of trousers?
So are you saying Kate could have washed the trousers she wore when in contact with a dead Madeleine? When would this have taken place? Kate was wearing those trousers when she did her appeal, just a few days after Madeleine disappeared. The days when she would have been with the police, distraught after finding Madeleine missing, so she stopped to wash her trousers you think? Why not just wear a different pair of trousers?
So are you saying Kate could have washed the trousers she wore when in contact with a dead Madeleine? When would this have taken place? Kate was wearing those trousers when she did her appeal, just a few days after Madeleine disappeared. The days when she would have been with the police, distraught after finding Madeleine missing, so she stopped to wash her trousers you think? Why not just wear a different pair of trousers?
Wasn’t some laundry sent to the wash soon after the disappearance?
From one of the cleaners
That she remembers that on Saturday 05/05/2007 having washed clothing belonging to the missing girl's family and she checked that it was children's and adult's clothing. This service was carried out by her colleague Silvia Cravinho. That on the next day Sunday it was her colleague Bernadete Calado who went to deliver the clothing directly to the missing girl's apartment.
The Mark
And, of course, Russel was also pretty efficient with a washing machine 8(0(*
Wasn’t some laundry sent to the wash soon after the disappearance?
From one of the cleaners
That she remembers that on Saturday 05/05/2007 having washed clothing belonging to the missing girl's family and she checked that it was children's and adult's clothing. This service was carried out by her colleague Silvia Cravinho. That on the next day Sunday it was her colleague Bernadete Calado who went to deliver the clothing directly to the missing girl's apartment.
Cuddlecat also went through the washing machine.Have we ever had a Cuddlecat thread? Perhaps now would be a good time to discuss his fate, on a separate thread.
I wonder whatever happened to him?
Wasn’t some laundry sent to the wash soon after the disappearance?
From one of the cleaners
That she remembers that on Saturday 05/05/2007 having washed clothing belonging to the missing girl's family and she checked that it was children's and adult's clothing. This service was carried out by her colleague Silvia Cravinho. That on the next day Sunday it was her colleague Bernadete Calado who went to deliver the clothing directly to the missing girl's apartment.
How did we get so far off topic?
In my opinion because whatever the topic it is merely a means to an end to peruse and analyse and exonerate four months of a failed police investigation while castigating and throwing muck at the family of a missing child.
In my opinion it is mind boggling when one bears in mind all this took place over eleven years ago and two current police investigations have been working on the case since appx 2011 ... both of which are on record as saying the parents are not suspects and who are presently looking for an abductor and the child.
Just for the sake of accuracy is there a cite for the PJ 'looking for an abductor and the child'?
Just for the sake of accuracy is there a cite for the PJ 'looking for an abductor and the child'?Mark Rowley said on video: "she was abducted"
Of course there is and I have posted it many times before on many different threads, it amuses me that you have made the request for the simple reason I knew you or someone would :)
Snip
Investigação centrada na tese do rapto
O PÚBLICO sabe que os elementos da PJ do Porto já se deslocaram várias vezes ao Algarve, para recolher elementos e realizar diligências informais, que permitirão sustentar a necessidade de reabrir o caso. A reabertura do inquérito é a única forma de que a PJ dispõe para inquirir formalmente essas testemunhas.
A reanálise do processo volta a centrar a investigação na tese de rapto, a principal linha seguida pela Scotland Yard, que também abriu uma investigação ao desaparecimento de Maddie. A equipa da PJ do Porto terá ficado convicta dessa tese perante a observação cuidada de toda a informação existente no processo.
https://www.publico.pt/2013/10/24/sociedade/noticia/ministerio-publico-reabre-processo-do-desaparecimento-de-maddie-1610207
Of course there is and I have posted it many times before on many different threads, it amuses me that you have made the request for the simple reason I knew you or someone would :)
Snip
Investigação centrada na tese do rapto
O PÚBLICO sabe que os elementos da PJ do Porto já se deslocaram várias vezes ao Algarve, para recolher elementos e realizar diligências informais, que permitirão sustentar a necessidade de reabrir o caso. A reabertura do inquérito é a única forma de que a PJ dispõe para inquirir formalmente essas testemunhas.
A reanálise do processo volta a centrar a investigação na tese de rapto, a principal linha seguida pela Scotland Yard, que também abriu uma investigação ao desaparecimento de Maddie. A equipa da PJ do Porto terá ficado convicta dessa tese perante a observação cuidada de toda a informação existente no processo.
https://www.publico.pt/2013/10/24/sociedade/noticia/ministerio-publico-reabre-processo-do-desaparecimento-de-maddie-1610207
As I suspected, no quote by the Portuguese authorities that they are 'looking for an abductor and the child'.
As I suspected, no quote by the Portuguese authorities that they are 'looking for an abductor and the child'.What is the kidnapping thesis in this context then?
What is the kidnapping thesis in this context then?
Who said 'kidnapping thesis? Was it the PJ? The Attorney General? Or was it a newspaper?
A Portuguese Tabloid.I wonder what ever gave them that idea, I'd have thought they'd be reporting the "parental involvement" angle instead like they did in 2007.
Who said 'kidnapping thesis? Was it the PJ? The Attorney General? Or was it a newspaper?On this forum if one cites the actual words of a policeman to support one's contention that the McCanns are not suspects and are looking for a stranger in connection with Madeleine's disappearance, your side of the argument counters with "well what else do you expect them to say" and "policeman tell lies" etc. So what point is there in asking for a cite from the PJ or the Attorney General? If one was provided the same excuses would be trotted out. It's a pointless exercise isn't it?
On this forum if one cites the actual words of a policeman to support one's contention that the McCanns are not suspects and are looking for a stranger in connection with Madeleine's disappearance, your side of the argument counters with "well what else do you expect them to say" and "policeman tell lies" etc. So what point is there in asking for a cite from the PJ or the Attorney General? If one was provided the rsame excuses would be trotted out. It's a pointless exercise isn't it?
As I pointed out earlier.... If it's accepted that policemen cannot be expected to tell the truth in order to progress the investigation then we cannot accept any police statement as true.... Including all the PJ.. All SY..... Martin grime.... AmaralIndeed. We may as well abandon this ridiculous crowing for cites as none of them seem to pass muster. The media lie, the authorities lie, the Tapas group lie, what else is there?
So have those 3 burglars been ruled out.... We don't really know do we
I wonder what ever gave them that idea, I'd have thought they'd be reporting the "parental involvement" angle instead like they did in 2007.
So has Murat been cleared... We don't know...If the McCanns haven't been cleared then neither has he, IMO.
If the McCanns haven't been cleared then neither has he, IMO.
Has he ever claimed to have been cleared?
Has he ever claimed to have been cleared?I'm fairly certain he would be more than a little taken aback if you were to tell him he hadn't been cleared IMO
I'm fairly certain he would be more than a little taken aback if you were to tell him he hadn't been cleared IMO
He probably understands the Portuguese legal system and isn’t bothered.Isn’t bothered he hasn’t been cleared of involvement in Madeleine’s disappearance? I think it’s far more likely he considers himself completely cleared of any involvement.
He probably understands the Portuguese legal system and isn’t bothered.He sounds quite bothered in this interview and confirms what I suspected- he considers himself completely cleared of involvement
He sounds quite bothered in this interview and confirms what I suspected- he considers himself completely cleared of involvement
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/newstopics/madeleinemccann/10877239/Former-suspect-Robert-Murat-still-haunted-by-Madeleine-McCann-case.html
He probably understands the Portuguese legal system and isn’t bothered.
Has he claimed it in a court of law?
Do you think he would be bothered if an ex policeman wrote a book accusing him of complicity
If a member of the investigation wrote a book on why the investigation decided he should be made Arguido probably not an issue
Has he claimed it in a court of law?No, why are you goalpost shifting?
If a member of the investigation wrote a book on why the investigation decided he should be made Arguido probably not an issueThat wasn‘t the question asked.
He probably understands the Portuguese legal system and isn’t bothered.
If it were me I would think it justice that the man who wrote a book that falsely accused me of hiding my child’s body were forced to pay all his earnings from the book into. Fund to help me find her.
Also he got his apology- He wasn't doing it for the money. Unlike the McCanns who were doing it for the money because if it were justice they were after, as we are told, then they would not have sued Amaral for a lottley figure of money. Maybe a token amount of, say, 25 thousand to cover legal fees, travel etc.
If it were me I would think it justice that the man who wrote a book that falsely accused me of hiding my child’s body were forced to pay all his earnings from the book into. Fund to help me find her.
The fund wasn't just being used to find her. How about the parents being sued for leaving their daughter alone crying at night and god knows what happened to her. Eh? How about that. They have made a lot of money from their daughters disappearance. Pass me a hankie! 8)><(Who is going to sue the parents? Could the twins sue their parents?
The fund wasn't just being used to find her. How about the parents being sued for leaving their daughter alone crying at night and god knows what happened to her. Eh? How about that. They have made a lot of money from their daughters disappearance. Pass me a hankie! 8)><(??? (&^&
If it were me I would think it justice that the man who wrote a book that falsely accused me of hiding my child’s body were forced to pay all his earnings from the book into. Fund to help me find her.
All his earnings being I.2 million? Like the McCanns you're way off the mark. Also the only way to 'force' Amaral to pay anything into the Fund was for the Fund to sue him. The McCanns sued him in their own names so it they had won it was up to them what they did with the money. It would probably have been as difficult to check if they handed it all to the Fund as it has been to check if all the book earnings went into the Fund.Did I say all his earnings came to 1.2 million? No. I was describing a hypothetical situation and what I would have done and how to me thT would have equalled justice. How much did Amaral earn off the back of his career promoting Madeleine’s demise and her parents’ guilt then? Book, video, TV appearances, media interviews...?
Did I say all his earnings came to 1.2 million? No. I was describing a hypothetical situation and what I would have done and how to me thT would have equalled justice. How much did Amaral earn off the back of his career promoting Madeleine’s demise and her parents’ guilt then? Book, video, TV appearances, media interviews...?
All his earnings from his book, you said. That's 342,111.86 Euros.That will do for starters. How much were the McCanns sueing the other defendants for?
That will do for starters. How much were the McCanns sueing the other defendants for?
What has that got to do with it? They wanted 1.2 million Euros from Amaral, which was far in excess of his earnings from his book. Had he been intimidated like the UK media and offered to settle, I expect they would have graciously accepted every penny he had instead. He refused, demanded they prove their case, and the rest is history.So are you saying no money was transferred to the McCanns as a result of the first court case?
So are you saying no money was transferred to the McCanns as a result of the first court case?
So are you saying no money was transferred to the McCanns as a result of the first court case?
Of course not! The defendants appealed and the appeals are suspensive.OK so the Courts will be wanting their fees.
OK so the Courts will be wanting their fees.
What has that got to do with it? They wanted 1.2 million Euros from Amaral, which was far in excess of his earnings from his book. Had he been intimidated like the UK media and offered to settle, I expect they would have graciously accepted every penny he had instead. He refused, demanded they prove their case, and the rest is history.I think how much the McCanns wanted from the other defendants is perfectly on topic - do we know or not?
I think how much the McCanns wanted from the other defendants is perfectly on topic - do we know or not?
You’re a better researcher than me. But why wouldn’t you be interested I wonder...?I think how much the McCanns wanted from the other defendants is perfectly on topic - do we know or not?
I could probably find out if I was interested. As could you.
I could probably find out if I was interested. As could you.
You’re a better researcher than me. But why wouldn’t you be interested I wonder...?
I believe there was only one target.Why were there additional defendants then? Weren’t they expected to cough up if found guilty?
Why were there additional defendants then? Weren’t they expected to cough up if found guilty?
I'm sure they would have been a welcome bonus had things gone the McCann's way.Things did go the McCanns way to begin with. What were they instructed to pay, if anything?
Things did go the McCanns way to begin with. What were they instructed to pay, if anything?Didn't they have books and videos destroyed?
Didn't they have books and videos destroyed?I don’t know.
The writ was for:Except it doesn’t answer what fines or punishments the other 3 defendants faced if the action went against them.
Kate Marie Healy MCCANN, GERALD PATRICK MCCANN, married , doctors, for them and in representation of their children MADELEINE BETH MCCANN , SEAN MICHAEL MCCANN and AMELIE EVE MCCANN , residents in xxx have instituted the following declarative action , under the form of process , against GONCALO DE SOUSA AMARAL, resident in xxx. The claimants have requested that, based on the proceeding action the accused is convicted to the following:
I- Payment to each of them of damages with a global value not inferior to 1.2 million Euros , being 500.000 Euros to the 3rd claimant (MBM), 100.000 Euros each for the 4th (SMM) and 5th (AEM) claimants and 250.000 Euros each for the 1st (KM) and 2nd (GM) claimants.
II – to pay retroactive interest, at the legal rate, on the value of the above mentioned amounts since the date of the citation till the payment is fully settled.
III – To pay emerging material damages, comprising of all the costs that may be liquidated in the execution of the sentence and that are directly and necessarily inherent to the judicial initiatives that are deemed necessary or that have been or will be carried out with grounds on the contents, interviews and news texts mentioned in the official documents / files.
IV – That the convicting sentence be published (extracts) at the convicted expenses, for two consecutive days in one of the most read newspapers in Portugal and one of the most read daily UK newspapers and also to publish the said convicting sentencing (extracts) and only once in one of the most read weekly newspapers in Portugal and in the UK, chosen by the claimants in the 15 days immediately subsequent to the final the judicial decision P (transito em julgado = Res Judicata, preclusion, no appeal is possible any more)
V – To pay the court fees, including the fees of its authorized representatives
The defendants were:
GONCALO DE SOUSA AMARAL,
GUERRA & PAZ, EDITORES, S.A
V.C. – VALENTIM DE CARVALHO-FILMES, AUDIOVISUAIS, S.A.
TVI – TELEVISAO INDEPENDENTE, S.A.
Fairly straightforward.
Except it doesn’t answer what fines or punishments the other 3 defendants faced if the action went against them.
There were two writs. One against Amaral for 1.2 million Euros. One against Amaral and the rest of them to ban the book and video, with penalties if they didn't obey.Do you have a link to the two writs?
The complaints made on behalf of Madeleine, Sean and Amalie were dismissed.
The complaints against TVI-INDEPENDENT TELEVISION, SA were dismissed.
Going forward Amaral and the remaining two other defendants appealed.
Do you have a link to the two writs?
As far as I can work it out, 'pecuniary' simply means 'monetary'. It seems it's unusual to claim a specific amount for pain and suffering.
One suspects the title should read ".........punitive damages........".The "death penalty" for instance.
As far as I can work it out, 'pecuniary' simply means 'monetary'. It seems it's unusual to claim a specific amount for pain and suffering.
Alternatively it could go to me.
Yes,it does and all nice round numbers too with lots of noughts. Good you can now put a price on suffering- saves a lot of haggling... They failed to provide medical evidence of the 'suffering'!
I was, and still am shocked and disgusted that they sought damages on behalf of their children. It was the parents who put their lives in the hands of 'others' by their lack of care for their welfare. The twins could sue the parents!!
As for Maddie, they claimed they didn't even know her mortal state , how could any judge make an award of money to a possibly dead child, who had no will, and the money would go to next of Kin being.... oh.... right...
The "death penalty" for instance.
A bit like that in intent but spelt differently.So what are the punitive damages? Imprisonment, community service, an what else?
Punitive damages are to discourage other people from doing the same thing that the writ detailed.
Pecuniary damages are actual losses to the plaintiff that can be quantified in monetary terms.
So what are the punitive damages? Imprisonment, community service, an what else?
Punitive damages are what the McCanns sought from Amaral. IMO The damages wouldn't just have punished him, they would have ruined him.
Brings a whole new meaning to... "He [Gonçalo Amaral] deserves to be miserable and feel fear" [ Kate McCann - Madeleine ]That is tough talk.
So what are the punitive damages? Imprisonment, community service, an what else?
Brings a whole new meaning to... "He [Gonçalo Amaral] deserves to be miserable and feel fear" [ Kate McCann - Madeleine ]
I think she may have succeeded in inflicting misery, but not fear.
Whereas, he inflicted both misery and fear on the parents of a missing child. IMO.
Whereas, he inflicted both misery and fear on the parents of a missing child. IMO.
Actually, they managed that all on their own because of their terrible parenting. Had the McCanns properly looked after that child we would not be here discussing this eleven years later and she might have had a life. The reality is whatever happened to her it was down to her parents stupidity.Wasn't it a group decision? Even done with the approval of OC management!
Wasn't it a group decision? Even done with the approval of OC management!
Wasn't it a group decision? Even done with the approval of OC management!Being a bear of very little brain I become confused quite readily.
It may have been a group decision but OC management weren’t in loco parentis.The term in loco parentis, Latin for "in the place of a parent" refers to the legal responsibility of a person or organization to take on some of the functions and responsibilities of a parent. Originally derived from English common law, it is applied in two separate areas of the law.
The term in loco parentis, Latin for "in the place of a parent" refers to the legal responsibility of a person or organization to take on some of the functions and responsibilities of a parent. Originally derived from English common law, it is applied in two separate areas of the law.
Wasn't it a group decision? Even done with the approval of OC management!
And not one member of the group had the sense to point out that it was risky. OC were under no obligation to tell parents how to behave.That backfired a bit then didn't it? Business on the whole was not improved by having a child go missing from their resort.
That backfired a bit then didn't it? Business on the whole was not improved by having a child go missing from their resort.
That backfired a bit then didn't it? Business on the whole was not improved by having a child go missing from their resort.
What of the long term,any figures to suggest booking's are not at a pre disappearance level?
If you look on trip advisor it seems to have gone downhill
I'm sure we've both been to places where then looking on trip advisor some seem to have stayed in a different universe.
No... Not if you look at the reviews as, a whole rather than individual.... I wouldn't book any hotel without looking at trip advisor first
Think we'ed better stop going way off topic,but it depends on whether its individual holidays or packaged.
It wasn't due to any oversight or failure on the part of the Ocean Club. It was more likely due to the depiction of PdL in the UK mediaI disagree with that view.
I disagree with that view.
I wonder why.Could it be I'm right?
Could it be I'm right?