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

[slartibartfast]

It would have been irrelevant if anyone had been.

It's a civil case, not a criminal one.

So in your view it would be irrelevant if Harrison had said to Amaral, "you need to look for a body close by".

[Mr Gray]

I'm (slowly) beginning to understand that, now.

The judge compared what was written in the book with what was written in the files.

If they matched, Amaral could say it (true or not).

In that sense, the judge did not adjudicate on what was 'true' or 'not true', just whether it was faithful to the files.

Unsure of the status of stuff in the files, but contradicted by other stuff, also in the files.

It's in the files that Eddie 'scented death' all over the place; also in the files (Grime and Harrison) that no evidential reliability could be placed on the dogs' reactions.

Where does Amaral stand on that one?

Amaral said Harrison changed the direction of the investigation into one for a little girl assumed dead and buried (in close vicinity to PdL), an outright distortion (of the files).  Harrison formed no fixed conclusion, but proffered the opinion that if death had occurred, it was most likely Madeleine's remains had been jettisoned into the sea ....

Amaral claimed the Scent Transfer Unit is a device for detecting death scent.  It is used for trapping and storing scents of living people.

Amaral's conclusion diametrically contradicts the conclusion of the Portuguese prosecutors.

I've no clue how the court that overruled the injunction concluded Amaral's book is based on the files.

It is plain common sense that Martin Smith agreed to produce an efit only because he had changed his mind about the man the Smiths all saw being Gerry.

And so on.

Amaral is up against it.

Yes it is becoming clear now
So when in proved facts it states the dog alerted to cadaver
It is a proven fact it is in the files
No more

[Carana]

So in your view it would be irrelevant if Harrison had said to Amaral, "you need to look for a body close by".

In the civil case at hand, yes

[Carana]

Yes it is becoming clear now
So when in proved facts it states the dog alerted to cadaver
It is a proven fact it is in the files
No more

Yes, that's all it means: someone wrote a book stating that the moon was made of green cheese, and she went to check if that was actually mentioned in the files.

The fact that others questioned wheher the moon really was made of green cheese or Gouda is neither here nor there.

ETA: There are exceptions in the "proven facts", some clearly could easily be proven,: e.g, that the McCanns were married (a certificate could easily prove that).

However, the veracity of the allegations in the files are not her problem.

[G-Unit]

I'm (slowly) beginning to understand that, now.

The judge compared what was written in the book with what was written in the files.

If they matched, Amaral could say it (true or not).

In that sense, the judge did not adjudicate on what was 'true' or 'not true', just whether it was faithful to the files.

Unsure of the status of stuff in the files, but contradicted by other stuff, also in the files.

It's in the files that Eddie 'scented death' all over the place; also in the files (Grime and Harrison) that no evidential reliability could be placed on the dogs' reactions.

Where does Amaral stand on that one?

Amaral said Harrison changed the direction of the investigation into one for a little girl assumed dead and buried (in close vicinity to PdL), an outright distortion (of the files).  Harrison formed no fixed conclusion, but proffered the opinion that if death had occurred, it was most likely Madeleine's remains had been jettisoned into the sea ....

Amaral claimed the Scent Transfer Unit is a device for detecting death scent.  It is used for trapping and storing scents of living people.

Amaral's conclusion diametrically contradicts the conclusion of the Portuguese prosecutors.

I've no clue how the court that overruled the injunction concluded Amaral's book is based on the files.

It is plain common sense that Martin Smith agreed to produce an efit only because he had changed his mind about the man the Smiths all saw being Gerry.

And so on.

Amaral is up against it.

The judge wasn't interested in that, she was interested in only two things.

1. Did Amaral breach Judicial secrecy.(by writing his book before the case files were released)
2. Was he bound (by virtue of being a retired policeman) to uphold the presumption of innocence of the couple.

Her conclusions were yes and yes.

[pegasus]

Which bit of legal advice led to the creation of the fund?

This is the advice which caused the fund to be created
"... told us that we needed to set up a 'fighting' fund. They would devise the objectives ..."
Source: page 125 KM book (an excellent and honest source)
That fund later went on to pay, in part, the expenses of suing Mr Amaral.

[ferryman]

The judge wasn't interested in that, she was interested in only two things.

1. Did Amaral breach Judicial secrecy.(by writing his book before the case files were released)
2. Was he bound (by virtue of being a retired policeman) to uphold the presumption of innocence of the couple.

Her conclusions were yes and yes.

She was interested in to what extent Amaral's book reflected what was written in the files.

Anything that deviated from what was written in the files (and lowered the McCanns' reputation) counted against him in the libel trial.

The judge was not interested (it was not her place to judge) in whether the files, themselves, represented truth or untruth.

But where Amaral's book, matched against what is written in the files, was concerned, that was the judge's benchmark.  Points (of Amaral's book) that deviated from what was written in the files (and lowered the reputations of the McCanns) counted against Amaral in the judgement.

There was shed-loads ....

[stephen25000]

She was interested in to what extent Amaral's book reflected what was written in the files.

Anything that deviated from what was written in the files (and lowered the McCanns' reputation) counted against him in the libel trial.

The judge was not interested (it was not her place to judge) in whether the files, themselves, represented truth or untruth.

But where Amaral's book, matched against what is written in the files, was concerned, that was the judge's benchmark.  Points (of Amaral's book) that deviated from what was written in the files (and lowered the reputations of the McCanns) counted against Amaral in the judgement.

There was shed-loads ....

and hers was just one opinion, subject to appeal.

[ferryman]

So in your view it would be irrelevant if Harrison had said to Amaral, "you need to look for a body close by".

Harrison's reports make plain he formed no such conclusion.

The penultimate sentence of his (final) report indicates he formed a tentative view that if Madeleine was dead -- if -- (a crucial proviso!) it was most likely her body was jettisoned in the sea.

Amaral's book is grossly at variance with Harrison's conclusion in a way that maligns the McCanns.

On that basis (alone) Amaral should lose the libel trial.

[pegasus]

Who paid the legal expenses of starting this civil case in 2008?

It was the many ordinary kind people who donated to Madeleine's Fund Leaving No Stone Unturned Limited 

"Chairman's statement for the year ended 31 March 2009 ....... We have: ........ paid for legal representation for Kate, Gerry, S... and A..... in Portugal, enabling them to obtain an injunction, banning Mr Amaral from repeating his fabricated claims about Madeleine's abduction ........"

(I corrected 2 typos which were in the original document)

[ferryman]

I am currently of the opinion on the available information and statistical datasets that if death has occurred, that it is possible that Madeleine McCann’s body has been disposed into the sea at Praia da Luz. (See my second report entitled “NPIA OP TASK Search Doc Beach and Marine”).

Mark Harrison.

[Carana]

Who paid the legal expenses of starting this civil case in 2008?

It was the many ordinary kind people who donated to Madeleine's Fund Leaving No Stone Unturned Limited 

"Chairman's statement for the year ended 31 March 2009 ....... We have: ........ paid for legal representation for Kate, Gerry, S... and A..... in Portugal, enabling them to obtain an injunction, banning Mr Amaral from repeating his fabricated claims about Madeleine's abduction ........"

(I corrected 2 typos which were in the original document)

My eyes glaze over at accountancy.

However, have you taken into account the payouts from various newspapers?


 Wednesday 19 March 2008 08.20 GMT
Last modified on Friday 8 January 2016 15.47 GMT


The Daily Express and Daily Star carried unprecedented front page apologies to Gerry and Kate McCann today for publishing more than 100 articles on the disappearance of their daughter, Madeleine, some of which suggested the couple were involved in her death .

After being threatened with legal action over the articles dating back almost 11 months to when their daughter first went missing, the newspapers, owned by Richard Desmond, also agreed to pay out what it called "a very substantial sum".

http://www.theguardian.com/media/2008/mar/19/dailyexpress.dailystar

[blonk]

In the absence of a statement by Mr Smith that is pure speculation on your part.  Mr Smith has never declared publicly that he changed his mind.

I have to agree with 'ferryman' here and respectfully suggest that it is far from 'speculation' that Martin Smith 'changed his mind'.

Surely it is obvious that he did for these among the following reasons:

1. He was publicly quoted in the media in 2008 as supporting the abduction, asking people to help in the search for Madeleine and look for the abductor (forget the exact quote)

2. He agreed as early as December 2007 or January 2008 to speak to Brian Kennedy and Metodo 3, knowing that they were acting for the McCanns

3. He clearly subsequently agreed to at least put his name to the two e-fits (whatever doubts I and not a few others have about his capacity to do so, a year after the event

4. Almost certainly he consented to the McCanns suggesting twice, within the May 2009 Channel 4 'Mockumentary, strongly suggesting that Smithman and Tannerman were one and the same   

5. Again he must be presumed to have consented to an audio summary of his evidence being placed on the McCanns' website in May 2009 (and it's still there today, 7 years later)

6. His evidence was used by Kate McCann again in 7 pages of her book, 'madeleine' (May 2011) to advance the case that Smithman and Tannerman were one and the same, and finally

7. His two admitted meetings with DCI Andy Redwood, one in 2012 and the other in 2013, must again be taken as presumed, if not proactive, co-operation with BBC Crimewatch, who in their show of 14 October 2013 made the two efits, quote, 'the centre of our focus'.

The only way in which you can argue @ John that he did not willingly 'change his mind' would be to suggest that he has been threatened, or otherwise forced, to change his mind.

(I leave out from this post all the many obvious issues that arise from his controversial evidence, given 4.5 months after the event, that he was '60% to 80% sure' it was Gerry McCann that he had seen 4.5 months earlier, based basically on his claim that Gerry was carrying Sean over his shoulder the same way as the man he alleged that he'd seen)           

[pegasus]

I am currently of the opinion on the available information and statistical datasets that if death has occurred, that it is possible that Madeleine McCann’s body has been disposed into the sea at Praia da Luz. (See my second report entitled “NPIA OP TASK Search Doc Beach and Marine”).

Mark Harrison.

Also by MH (Processos IX p2227)
"In relation to the dead body scent if such a scent is indicated by the EVRD it may suggest that a body has been in the property but removed"

[Alfred R Jones]

if a member of "Team McCann" had attempted to threaten or force me to do something I didn't want to do, I would have gone straight to the newspapers with it - what a scoop for them!