Former Portuguese detective Gonçalo Amaral wins appeal in damages trial.

[jassi]

It isn't a problem for me, but it could well be for Portugal and Amaral.

So why bother even bringing it up?  Why anticipate something that might never happen?

[ferryman]

That demonstrates a very narrow minded outlook.

You challenge the right to the assumption of innocence?

Why is that?

[Eleanor]

So why bother even bringing it up?  Why anticipate something that might never happen?

Isn't this what everyone is doing?

[jassi]

You challenge the right to the assumption of innocence?

Why is that?

Not at all - it was your dogmatic statement about insanity that I was commenting on.

Presumption of innocence applies only to a court of law. Individuals can think what they like.

[lordpookles]

What I'm not clear on is what would happen here in the UK? For example, if a private individual not necessarily a detective published a book speculating and provided a thesis that for instance Michael Barrymore did commit a murder during that infamous pool party. Could said individual be prosecuted for libel or prosecuted for anything at all? Is it OK for one to give their opinion whilst admitting they may be wrong - ie something is stated as opinion, which is not the same as stating something as fact?

[Brietta]

What I'm not clear on is what would happen here in the UK? For example, if a private individual not necessarily a detective published a book speculating and provided a thesis that for instance Michael Barrymore did commit a murder during that infamous pool party. Could said individual be prosecuted for libel or prosecuted for anything at all? Is it OK for one to give their opinion whilst admitting they may be wrong - ie something is stated as opinion, which is not the same as stating something as fact?

Hi LP ... If you wish to test it, try posting such an opinion on the forum ...

(a)    see if it is allowed to stand
(b)   or countdown how long it takes for it to be whooshed

I think (b) would be the order of the day.

[jassi]

30 days.

So we ought to know by about the middle of May if we have reached the end, or if there is another thrilling installment .

[Brietta]

you sceptics have some strange ideas...I doubt if anyone on this forum is seething...lashing out...or best of all...madly in love with Kate

I see it as a disappointing backward step into a bygone time.

The cast had a couple of changes since the last time round when Mr Amaral won his appeal ... the McCanns ~ Amaral ~ judge Catarina Arelo Manso ... but otherwise 'business as usual'.

Obviously it must be considered appropriate for the same judge to rule on the same case on two separate occasions in the matter of two different judgements ... however had she ruled in the McCann favour first time around, one can only imagine the scratching of heads at her appearance second time around.

[Eleanor]

Not at all - it was your dogmatic statement about insanity that I was commenting on.

Presumption of innocence applies only to a court of law. Individuals can think what they like.

Especially in Portugal.

[stephen25000]

I see it as a disappointing backward step into a bygone time.

The cast had a couple of changes since the last time round when Mr Amaral won his appeal ... the McCanns ~ Amaral ~ judge Catarina Arelo Manso ... but otherwise 'business as usual'.

Obviously it must be considered appropriate for the same judge to rule on the same case on two separate occasions in the matter of two different judgements ... however had she ruled in the McCann favour first time around, one can only imagine the scratching of heads at her appearance second time around.

Backward step ?

Why, as your views are clearly biased in this case, as are those on both sides of the fence.

[Lace]

Have you read his book? Read Chapter 18 first - it doesn't say 100% match.

"During a more relaxed moment at one of these meetings, I come out with an ill-judged comment. Inopportune or undiplomatic, but this is my reasoning: thinking about the kinds of crime that may have been committed if the McCanns were involved in their daughter's disappearance, something occurs to me. If they were involved in one way or another, then a crime of fraud or abuse of trust is a possibility concerning the fund that was set up to finance the search for Madeleine. Donations have reached nearly 3 million Euros.

If such a crime exists, Portugal would not have jurisdiction to investigate and try it. The fund being legally registered in England, it would be our English colleagues who would deal with the case. Our English colleagues then realise a hard reality: the strong possibility that they would have a crime to investigate in their own country, with the McCann couple as the main suspects: a prospect that does not seem to appeal to them. I notice a sudden pallor in the faces of those British people present." (Chapter 18 TOTL)

He says 4 short of 100% in his book,  but this is what hit the headlines - 


DNA samples that are a "100 per cent match" to Madeleine McCann have been found in her parents' hire car and holiday apartment, it has been claimed.

That came from Portugal.

[G-Unit]

I see it as a disappointing backward step into a bygone time.

The cast had a couple of changes since the last time round when Mr Amaral won his appeal ... the McCanns ~ Amaral ~ judge Catarina Arelo Manso ... but otherwise 'business as usual'.

Obviously it must be considered appropriate for the same judge to rule on the same case on two separate occasions in the matter of two different judgements ... however had she ruled in the McCann favour first time around, one can only imagine the scratching of heads at her appearance second time around.

Are you suggesting bias or what?

[stephen25000]

I see Amaral has given thanks to those who donated to the legal fund including police officers in the UK.

[ferryman]

Not at all - it was your dogmatic statement about insanity that I was commenting on.

Presumption of innocence applies only to a court of law. Individuals can think what they like.

Agreed, with emphasis on the word I underline.

Think!

They should be much more careful about what they say or commit to permanent form, such as a messageboard.

[Eleanor]

It's understandable that supporters are disappointed by the verdict. I don't see how it justifies vilifying a whole country, that's all. Just as I see no justification for suggesting those who don't support the McCanns are insane. That's where the desperation is evident; in ridiculous assertions.

No one is vilifying the whole country.  But there is something seriously wrong with the Judiciary.