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

[Mr Gray]

The case isn't over yet.

The McCann's have nothing but ongoing legal bills, as I predicted.

and amaral lost as I predicted..

[stephen25000]

and amaral lost as I predicted..

The case isn't over.

How many points in court, did the McCann's fail to prove ?

[mercury]

Please provide a cite for that.

It does not exist.

[Mr Gray]

The case isn't over.

How many points in court, did the McCann's fail to prove ?

He lost that hearing as I predicted
Has he appealed against the judgement or the sentence

[stephen25000]

He lost that hearing as I predicted
Has he appealed against the judgement or the sentence

Answer the question.

How many points did the McCann's fail to prove ?

They have of course received NOTHING as regards money.

[ferryman]

Please provide a cite for that.

I'm not repeating the libel over here.

But read chapter 4 of his book in conjunction with the summary.

The clear inference is that there was an overdose of calpol causing a "tragic accident" (falling off a sofa) and death.

If he'd left it at "falling off a sofa" (for which there is zero evidence) at least he wouldn't have accused the McCanns of killing Madeleine.

[stephen25000]

I'm not repeating the libel over here.

But read chapter 4 of his book in conjunction with the summary.

The clear inference is that there was an overdose of calpol causing a "tragic accident" (falling off a sofa) and death.

If he'd left it at "falling off a sofa" (for which there is zero evidence) at least he wouldn't have accused the McCanns of killing Madeleine.

He didn't ferryman.

[slartibartfast]

I'm not repeating the libel over here.

But read chapter 4 of his book in conjunction with the summary.

The clear inference is that there was an overdose of calpol causing a "tragic accident" (falling off a sofa) and death.

If he'd left it at "falling off a sofa" (for which there is zero evidence) at least he wouldn't have accused the McCanns of killing Madeleine.

No, doesn't cut it. In fact that is your inference.

[ferryman]

No, doesn't cut it. In fact that is your inference.

What doesn't "cut" what?

[mercury]

I'm not repeating the libel over here.

But read chapter 4 of his book in conjunction with the summary.

The clear inference is that there was an overdose of calpol causing a "tragic accident" (falling off a sofa) and death.

If he'd left it at "falling off a sofa" (for which there is zero evidence) at least he wouldn't have accused the McCanns of killing Madeleine.

To play devils advocate, how are you in any position to state it IS libel? Rather than you just  believe it is.

[ferryman]

To play devils advocate, how are you in any position to state it IS libel? Rather than you just  believe it is.

There is zero evidence to support any of it.

[mercury]

There is zero evidence to support any of it.

Bit like the abduction? What evidence would there be of it anyway, rhetorical question.

[slartibartfast]

What doesn't "cut" what?

It means you are adding 2 + 2 and making sure the answer is 5 because it suits your preconceptions. You take a paragraph in chapter 4 and a conclusion in chapter 22 and create a libel all by yourself.

[ferryman]

It means you are adding 2 + 2 and making sure the answer is 5 because it suits your preconceptions. You take a paragraph in chapter 4 and a conclusion in chapter 22 and create a libel all by yourself.

Nope.

Amaral did that, not me.

That's (one!) of the reasons why he lost the libel trial.

[slartibartfast]

Nope.

Amaral did that, not me.

That's (one!) of the reasons why he lost the libel trial.

Let's have the cite you seem to think exists.