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

[Angelo222]

The Case wasn't just about money.

One could point out that money was the Genesis of this case as saving money was the reason Maddie was put at risk in the first place.

[Alfred R Jones]

One could point out that money was the Genesis of this case as saving money was the reason Maddie was put at risk in the first place.

Really?  Did the McCanns and their friends give that as the reason for doing their own checks or are you simply casting slurs on them all for the fun of it?

[stephen25000]

Really?  Did the McCanns and their friends give that as the reason for doing their own checks or are you simply casting slurs on them all for the fun of it?

You are defending the indefensible.

[Benice]

One could point out that money was the Genesis of this case as saving money was the reason Maddie was put at risk in the first place.

If they were that tight-fisted - no way IMO would they have given up their 5 'free' brekkies and instead preferred to incur the extra expense of buying their breakfasts from the supermarket - rather than make the walk to the restaurant.

[Jean-Pierre]

Good grace eludes me all the time Alf because I am actually what Bill Wyman called Chuck Berry 
Not until I have made sure the other party is in fact correct in all they say 
But the comment about when was 500k considered to be most of 1.2MM still stands?
For example Alf do you believe that 500k is more than 50% of 1.2MM? So if it isn't ?

Evidently. 

If you read my post, you will see that it was confined to the case against the other three defendants.  And of course the McCann's claim only related to the publication and distribution of the book and DVD, and there was no financial claim in relation to the other three defendants. 

However, you do raise an interesting point over the original claim, which was:   


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.

In the event, the court struck out the claims in respect of Madeleine and the twins, and this is probably reasonable.  It is impossible to quantify what damage has been caused.

But the claims in respect of GM and KM have been granted in full. 

[stephen25000]

Evidently. 

If you read my post, you will see that it was confined to the case against the other three defendants.  And of course the McCann's claim only related to the publication and distribution of the book and DVD, and there was no financial claim in relation to the other three defendants. 

However, you do raise an interesting point over the original claim, which was:   


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.

In the event, the court struck out the claims in respect of Madeleine and the twins, and this is probably reasonable.  It is impossible to quantify what damage has been caused.

But the claims in respect of GM and KM have been granted in full.

Can you remind d us all of what payments have been made ?

[Benice]

Evidently. 

If you read my post, you will see that it was confined to the case against the other three defendants.  And of course the McCann's claim only related to the publication and distribution of the book and DVD, and there was no financial claim in relation to the other three defendants. 

However, you do raise an interesting point over the original claim, which was:   


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.

In the event, the court struck out the claims in respect of Madeleine and the twins, and this is probably reasonable.  It is impossible to quantify what damage has been caused.

But the claims in respect of GM and KM have been granted in full.

Thankyou Jean-Pierre.   I for one really appreciate your explanatory posts - which make this case so much easier to understand.

[Jean-Pierre]

Can you remind d us all of what payments have been made ?

None to the Madeleine fund, of course.  (Do bear in mind that the money is still under the court's control, though).

Given that the case is still at the appeal stage, this must be a contender for "stupid question of year" award.   

[stephen25000]

None to the Madeleine fund, of course.  (Do bear in mind that the money is still under the court's control, though).

Given that the case is still at the appeal stage, this must be a contender for "stupid question of year" award.

I was being sarcastic.

Then again, you are rarely on the ball.

[Jean-Pierre]

I was being sarcastic.

Then again, you are rarely on the ball.

You wish.   

[stephen25000]

You wish.   

Not on your nelly %£5&%

[Jean-Pierre]

Yes we know.

REVENGE.

Oh dear Stephen.  Your hate goggles have been getting all fogged up with bile again. 

If the McCanns motive had been revenge, they would have brought an article 180 action.   

[stephen25000]

Oh dear Stephen.  Your hate goggles have been getting all fogged up with bile again. 

If the McCanns motive had been revenge, they would have brought an article 180 action.

There is no 'oh dear' about it.

The McCann's wanted revenge against Amaral and that is well known.

Why do you deny it ?

As to bile, ask Kate McCann and her reference to 'f##### to####', and let's not forget 'Tweedledum and Tweedledee'.

However, I'm too polite to say what I really think of the McCann's on here. £4%4%

[Mr Gray]

There is no 'oh dear' about it.

The McCann's wanted revenge against Amaral and that is well known.

Why do you deny it ?

As to bile, ask Kate McCann and her reference to 'f##### to####', and let's not forget 'Tweedledum and Tweedledee'.

However, I'm too polite to say what I really think of the McCann's on here. £4%4%

I would love to say what I really think about you...but you are so sensitive you run to the mods

[Alice Purjorick]

Which part of what JP has quoted to you from the court ruling do you doubt?  As for your comment, we have already had this discussion, and it has no bearing on your claim that the other three defendants got off scot-free.

From Google translate of the judgement. Anne Guedes translation is pretty similar:
VI. Judge over the rest of unfounded the claims made in the action attached by the authors KATE MARIE PATRICK HEALY McCann and Gerald McCann against the defendants GONÇALO AMARAL, WAR & PEACE, EDITORS, SA and VC - OAK-FILM VALENTINE, AUDIOVISUAL, SA and same acquit the defendants.
VII. Judging fully rejected the claims made in the attached action against TVI defendant - INDEPENDENT TELEVISION, SA, the same acquitting the defendant.

VII is clear enough. I leave it to the “experts” to have a dreadfully esoteric discussion about what VI means but it is fairly obvious.

But none of it was about the money. Apparently the only person in Portugal who cannot talk about and support Sr Amaral’s thesis is he. The entire nation and it’s dog seemingly can:

The prohibitions required under paragraphs d), e) and f) of action of petitionary attached, beyond the scope of this action and are Disproportionate. It is not illegal to retain the support of the thesis que Madeleine McCann died a smaller apartment in Praia da Luz and his body was hidden by parents. The scope of action is the claim by the defendant Goncalo Amaral, in the book, the interview and documentary, in concrete terms in Which it did, this same thesis.