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

[Eleanor]

Wandering Off Topic.

[pegasus]

Is there not a facility to purchase the details any interested party may require on the relevant website?

And please - the PJGA does not tell all its donators what its income & expenditure is - or I would have been told.

PJGA certainly does tell donators how much income it recieves.
In period 29 Apr 2015 to 21 Oct PJGA recieved >£50K through GFM and >E6K through PP.

[misty]

PJGA certainly does tell donators how much income it recieves.
In period 29 Apr 2015 to 21 Oct PJGA recieved >£50K through GFM and >E6K through PP.

LOL 6 months out of 6 years. What about the rest of the money donated - how much did that amount to? They're still promoting the Paypal button on Twitter about 50 times a day.

[stephen25000]

LOL 6 months out of 6 years. What about the rest of the money donated - how much did that amount to? They're still promoting the Paypal button on Twitter about 50 times a day.

You really can't stomach that people have donated to Amaral's legal expenses.

I believe it has been stated any money left after the appeals process, will go to charity.

[Jean-Pierre]

You really can't stomach that people have donated to Amaral's legal expenses.

I believe it has been stated any money left after the appeals process, will go to charity.

Oh dear Stephen - It seems that all this 'objection' to amarals defence fund is all in your head.  Most sensible people see that a properly funded defence is essential to justice. 

Some however are concerned about the apparent double standards as regards transparency.

[stephen25000]

Oh dear Stephen - It seems that all this 'objection' to amarals defence fund is all in your head.  Most sensible people see that a properly funded defence is essential to justice. 

Some however are concerned about the apparent double standards as regards transparency.

I anticipated that entirely predictable reply.

Sensible people do believe Amaral's fund is essential for justice.

However, I wasn't talking about sensible people.

As to transparency, tell that to the mccanns.

Oh, by the way, what happened to the money the mccanns received from serialization rights in the 'sun' ?

As to justice in this case, that would be the mccanns getting their just desserts for child neglect.

[Mr Gray]

I anticipated that entirely predictable reply.

Sensible people do believe Amaral's fund is essential for justice.

However, I wasn't talking about sensible people.

As to transparency, tell that to the mccanns.

Oh, by the way, what happened to the money the mccanns received from serialization rights in the 'sun' ?

I would say no one on this forum begrudges the donations to amaral's fund...the last thing we would want is posters claiming he has been denied justice...we want to savour the moment

[stephen25000]

It is quite remarkable that some people who want to see justice served, only compassion for the mccanns.

When of course the mccanns are responsible for setting in motion the chain of events leading to Madeleine's disappearance, and the clear hatred for Amaral seethes from their typing.

[Brietta]

I would say no one on this forum begrudges the donations to amaral's fund...the last thing we would want is posters claiming he has been denied justice...we want to savour the moment

The judge made her ruling based on Mr Amaral's breach of the Portuguese Constitution article 32(2) as well as his professional misconduct as a former public servant ... so as far as I am concerned, if people want to throw their money to be used for defending that it is entirely up to them.

The failure to recognise that anyone who wishes to make a donation to Madeleine's fund is similarly entitled to do what they wish with their money ... is I find, mind bending.

What on earth is holding up notification of the result of his appeal?

[G-Unit]

Either Portuguese justice is moving as slowly as usual or they are thinking very deeply about the case. If it's the latter, then it perhaps isn't quite such an obvious and simple case as some seem to believe. There's the view of the judge that it was right to ban the book again, thereby overturning a supreme Court decision. I bet that's caused some head scratching.

[ferryman]

Either Portuguese justice is moving as slowly as usual or they are thinking very deeply about the case. If it's the latter, then it perhaps isn't quite such an obvious and simple case as some seem to believe. There's the view of the judge that it was right to ban the book again, thereby overturning a supreme Court decision. I bet that's caused some head scratching.

Why?

The supreme court ruled on the right of free speech versus the right to reputation (both guaranteed by the Portuguese constitution).  Something had to give, and the McCanns' right to a good name gave ....

The ruling in the libel judgment was that Amaral was guilty of libel.

He might have gotten away with statements that lower reputation if they had been contained uncontradicted in the files.

They didn't.

So Amaral lost.

[blonk]

Either Portuguese justice is moving as slowly as usual or they are thinking very deeply about the case. If it's the latter, then it perhaps isn't quite such an obvious and simple case as some seem to believe. There's the view of the judge that it was right to ban the book again, thereby overturning a supreme Court decision. I bet that's caused some head scratching.

The Portuguese justice system is an international joke (as confirmed time and again by international assessors)  - and the McCann v Amaral case has been the most deplorable of utter farces.

So far, it's taken them 6 years and 8 months and still they're way off a final verdict.

We've all been witness to this unending saga of judicial incompetence - and basically it's all about a bloke who wrote a book about a shelved investigation, the vast majority of which had been made public anyway by means of a handy and free DVD!

It's a very true saying that 'justice delayed is justice denied' - to both sides in this case   

[G-Unit]

Why?

The supreme court ruled on the right of free speech versus the right to reputation (both guaranteed by the Portuguese constitution).  Something had to give, and the McCanns' right to a good name gave ....

The ruling in the libel judgment was that Amaral was guilty of libel.

He might have gotten away with statements that lower reputation if they had been contained uncontradicted in the files.

They didn't.

So Amaral lost.

If you can't see a contradiction there that's fine. I can. Supreme Court; freedom of speech trumps the right to reputation. Libel judge; Right to reputation trumps the right to freedom of speech. That wasn't her actual ruling, but the effect of her ruling was to curtail his freedom of speech.

[pegasus]

In the period 29 Apr 2015 to 21 Oct 2015 PJGA recieved >£50K through GFM and >E6K through PP.
I compliment PJGA on their transparent reporting to donaters.
What was MF's income in the same period?
Even supporters can only imagine or guess.
Because MF haven't released any figures at all for that period, and possibly won't until late Dec 2016.

[G-Unit]

The Portuguese justice system is an international joke (as confirmed time and again by international assessors)  - and the McCann v Amaral case has been the most deplorable of utter farces.

So far, it's taken them 6 years and 8 months and still they're way off a final verdict.

We've all been witness to this unending saga of judicial incompetence - and basically it's all about a bloke who wrote a book about a shelved investigation, the vast majority of which had been made public anyway by means of a handy and free DVD!

It's a very true saying that 'justice delayed is justice denied' - to both sides in this case   

Very true.Six years ago a quick decision might have been relevant. At this stage everyone who wants to has read the book. Everyone who wants to has read the files on which the book is (mostly) based. Whatever the outcome no-one wins really.

If the McCanns were trying to clean up their reputations that hasn't happened. For those who believe in them their reputations were never tarnished anyway and for those who don't the final judgement won't change their minds. I suppose they'll enjoy having his money, if they get it and telling the newspapers how it 'wasn't about the money' and it'll all be used for 'the search' (unless they have to pay lawyers to sue someone else, of course).

At this stage I expect Amaral has become accustomed to being poorer than he expected, so the money will be no loss. I think his faith in Portuguese justice system will be dented and he cares about that, rather misguidedly in my opinion.