I don't have a problem with Amaral pursuing the appeal process. That's his right. I don't have a problem with people contributing to his legal fund, either. Assuming that they are compos mentis, what they do with their spare cash is their own business.
What I do find odd is the Supreme Court ruling over the injunction. I wonder how much time they actually spent on analysing the facts on which they based their judgement?
In the book, we do not verify any reference to any facts that are not in that dispatch.
Where the author differs from the Prosecutors who have written the dispatch, is in the logical, police-work-related and investigative interpretation that he does of those facts.
In that aspect, we stand before the exercise of freedom of opinion, which is a domain in which the author is an expert, as he was a criminal investigator for 26 years.
Reasonable sceptics on here (if they're honest), would surely find that finding to be questionable? No?