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

[stephen25000]

they have found enough to say the mccanns are not suspects

Clever that.

Didn't know the crime.

 

[Eleanor]

TOPIC.  No more warnings.

[mercury]

they have found enough to say the mccanns are not suspects

Cite for that categorical descriptive  statement?


Oh hang on, my apologies, it is off topic, but then again your post remains in here so presumably  it is not off topic, or is it? Confusing hey?

[ferryman]

Cite for that categorical descriptive  statement?


Oh hang on, my apologies, it is off topic, but then again your post remains in here so presumably  it is not off topic, or is it? Confusing hey?

It is entirely on-topic, because if the McCanns are not suspects (they are not!) and Amaral wrote a book saying the McCannsdunsomethingdreadfultoMadeleineandcovereditup (he did!) then what is the basis of Amaral's appeal (in the libel trial, concluded in April)?

[Alice Purjorick]

It is entirely on-topic, because if the McCanns are not suspects (they are not!) and Amaral wrote a book saying the McCannsdunsomethingdreadfultoMadeleineandcovereditup (he did!) then what is the basis of Amaral's appeal (in the libel trial, concluded in April)?

He could appeal against the judgement or the sentence.
As the sentence is automatic from the judgment ie the restoration of equity ie he has taken from him any monies earned as a result of his "crime" then it would follow he has appealed against the judgement.

[mercury]

It is entirely on-topic, because if the McCanns are not suspects (they are not!) and Amaral wrote a book saying the McCannsdunsomethingdreadfultoMadeleineandcovereditup (he did!) then what is the basis of Amaral's appeal (in the libel trial, concluded in April)?

They were declared not to be persons of interest in a specifc context at a specific time, fed up of typng it....never  that SY have cleared them...totally different ballpark...as for Amarals appeal, and the ciurt case,  it has absolutely zilch, nada, zero to what Redwood said, to think so is to be livng on cloud cuckoo land

[Brietta]

They were declared not to be persons of interest in a specifc context at a specific time, fed up of typng it....never  that SY have cleared them...totally different ballpark...as for Amarals appeal, and the ciurt case,  it has absolutely zilch, nada, zero to what Redwood said, to think so is to be livng on cloud cuckoo land

Indeed they are not persons of interest.  However it is worthwhile quoting the whole sentence just for the sake of total clarity and accuracy ...

“Neither her parents or any of the members of the group that were with her are either persons of interest or suspects”  ~ DCI Andy Redwood

[mercury]

Indeed they are not persons of interest.  However it is worthwhile quoting the whole sentence just for the sake of total clarity and accuracy ...

“Neither her parents or any of the members of the group that were with her are either persons of interest or suspects”  ~ DCI Andy Redwood

You changed the meanng of my post as well as choosing to ignore it


 

[ferryman]

You changed the meanng of my post as well as choosing to ignore it


 

You said something about the McCanns not being cleared, which is perfectly true.

The McCanns were never charged with anything, and hence don't need to be 'cleared' ....

[mercury]

You said something about the McCanns not being cleared, which is perfectly true.

The McCanns were never charged with anything, and hence don't need to be 'cleared' ....

You and others have posted several times they have been exonerated/cleared, so bit late for the semantics/backtracking

And


Suspect status is a volatile business

[ferryman]

You and others have posted several times they have been exonerated/cleared, so bit late for the semantics/backtracking

And


Suspect status is a volatile business

Not since Jean-Pierre corrected me that to be 'exonerated' you first have to be charged.

I took on board the legal correction ....

[mercury]

Not since Jean-Pierre corrected me that to be 'exonerated' you first have to be charged.

I took on board the legal correction ....

always wondered why you and others were
concerned about legal matters when they were never topics of discussion

[ferryman]

always wondered why you and others were
concerned about legal matters when they were never topics of discussion

On a thread inviting discussion on the (dubious) contention that Amaral has 'confirmed' he will appeal the libel decision (in favour of the McCanns) to a higher court?

Why would that not be the topic of discussion?

[mercury]

On a thread inviting discussion on the (dubious) contention that Amaral has 'confirmed' he will appeal the libel decision (in favour of the McCanns) to a higher court?

Why would that not be the topic of discussion?

Oh my apologies then.I WAS referring to people turninvg  discussions of the  case in generl to a legal one when the discussion were nothing about the law which makes me think..the mccanns were afraid of the law

[Brietta]

Oh my apologies then.I WAS referring to people turninvg  discussions of the  case in generl to a legal one when the discussion were nothing about the law which makes me think..the mccanns were afraid of the law

Why should the Drs McCann fear the law.  Any legal action they have been forced to take has been justified by a successful track record of favourable judgements.

Mr Amaral on the other hand has an abysmal record in the Portuguese law courts.  He has a criminal conviction.  He has lost civil cases some of which were brought against him and some of which he pursued which is perhaps part and parcel of his parlous financial state when costs awarded against him are considered.

Worth pointing out that it is the McCann success in a Portuguese court which is the subject of his appeal ... which is the subject of this thread.