Former Portuguese detective Gonçalo Amaral wins appeal in damages trial.

[ferryman]

There is talk ...

All over the world, about all sorts of things ...

[jassi]

If Amaral can do it then so can anyone else.

Why should that be a problem?

[pathfinder73]

Amaral lied in his book,  there was no 100% DNA found of Madeleine's.

Can't you see why they sued him though?   Would you let someone let alone the co-ordinator of the case write a book which was damning you,  drugging your children hiding her body,   of course you wouldn't.   I would have done exactly the same as the McCann's especially as it would be protecting my daughter from someone saying she was dead and therefore no one should search for her.

Have you read his book? Read Chapter 18 first - it doesn't say 100% match.

"During a more relaxed moment at one of these meetings, I come out with an ill-judged comment. Inopportune or undiplomatic, but this is my reasoning: thinking about the kinds of crime that may have been committed if the McCanns were involved in their daughter's disappearance, something occurs to me. If they were involved in one way or another, then a crime of fraud or abuse of trust is a possibility concerning the fund that was set up to finance the search for Madeleine. Donations have reached nearly 3 million Euros.

If such a crime exists, Portugal would not have jurisdiction to investigate and try it. The fund being legally registered in England, it would be our English colleagues who would deal with the case. Our English colleagues then realise a hard reality: the strong possibility that they would have a crime to investigate in their own country, with the McCann couple as the main suspects: a prospect that does not seem to appeal to them. I notice a sudden pallor in the faces of those British people present." (Chapter 18 TOTL)

[misty]

He might not be suing over the injunction, he may have other grounds, though as I'm not a lawyer, I would want to suggest what they might be.

Like most things, it may become more clear in the fullness of time

In a UK libel trial, there is a facility which permits the defendant to apply for the right to damages, should any injunctions imposed subsequently be proven to have been incorrect. I do not know if this is the case in Pt. law.

[Brietta]

If his book is republished and sells lots of copies he will be able to take those sales as a baseline to estimate how much he lost during the period of the ban, I would imagine. Then we have such things as stress caused to himself and his family. He, unlike the McCanns may even have medical evidence of the effects of the case on his health. Kate's 'depression' was never medically diagnosed.

That is one way to look at it.

I am sure there may be those who will queue to buy another copy but it was a best seller in Portugal suggesting sales would have tailed off, so what potential was there for profit to be made from further sales?

If it is weighed against actual earnings from later titles authored by him that might reduce it even further.  There is also perhaps a more discerning readership who prefer to read the facts rather than a threadbare thesis unable to suggest how the prime suggestion in it was accomplished.
(coffin invasions and subsequent cremation ... probably won't cut the mustard ... then again it takes all sorts)

Should he decide to counter sue the McCanns his allegation of penury at their hands will require substantiation.  (I would imagine this to be a requirement even of a Portuguese court). Many issues will almost certainly be raised in court and the gloves will be entirely off ;  I think that might be a conversation with himself worth having, once the McCanns have their bite at the cherry by appealing the court decision ... should such a thing be allowed.

[Eleanor]

Why should that be a problem?

It might be if nasty, true things are being said about Amaral.

[jassi]

It might be if nasty, true things are being said about Amaral.

So, I say again, why should that be a problem?  Who would want to do such a petty thing and for what reason?

[Alice Purjorick]

If Amaral can do it then so can anyone else.

A sues B and the judgement is in A's favour.
B has grounds for appeal and the right of appeal to a higher court which B exercises and B's appeal is upheld.
Should A have grounds and the right of appeal to the highest court then A may exercise that right.

So far so good. What is wrong with that? The practice works in most countries and is accepted as the norm.

[G-Unit]

Amaral lied in his book,  there was no 100% DNA found of Madeleine's.

Can't you see why they sued him though?   Would you let someone let alone the co-ordinator of the case write a book which was damning you,  drugging your children hiding her body,   of course you wouldn't.   I would have done exactly the same as the McCann's especially as it would be protecting my daughter from someone saying she was dead and therefore no one should search for her.

All your arguments rest on your opinion that the McCanns are totally innocent. That's your non-negotiable starting point. If you come at it from a different starting point your arguments don't hold water. Someone who doesn't know if the McCanns are innocent or not can accept the possibility that their motives were not what they said they were. Lest we forget, the subject of 'drugging' was first raised by the parents to explain their comatose twins, not by the PJ.

[stephen25000]

Ask SY.   You are forgetting that when Amaral's book came out it was only a year or so after Madeleine went missing and people were still phoning in with sightings,  a very important time in the search,  to be told Madeleine is dead.

Why do you continue to omit that other people had already concluded, independent of Amaral, that in all likelihood she was already dead.

[misty]

Why do you continue to omit that other people had already concluded, independent of Amaral, that in all likelihood she was already dead.

Which other people independent of Amaral?

[Eleanor]

So, I say again, why should that be a problem?  Who would want to do such a petty thing and for what reason?

I thought we were talking about the right to freedom of speech.  What is sauce for the goose is sauce for the gander.  That is what Portugal is saying.  Reasons are irrelevant.

[jassi]

There is no other sane starting point (in a non-fascist state).

That demonstrates a very narrow minded outlook.

[jassi]

I thought we were talking about the right to freedom of speech.  What is sauce for the goose is sauce for the gander.  That is what Portugal is saying.  Reasons are irrelevant.

Yes, so why is it a problem?

[Eleanor]

Yes, so why is it a problem?

It isn't a problem for me, but it could well be for Portugal and Amaral.