Former Portuguese detective Gonçalo Amaral wins appeal in damages trial.

[Brietta]

Interesting Light Bedtime Reading

http://www.gerrymccannsblogs.co.uk/Appeal_19_04_2016.htm

Thank you Alice ... I will save it for later.

[misty]

He won't be doing that dear.

And he won't be suing Pamalam either?

[stephen25000]

And he won't be suing Pamalam either?

Why don't you e-mail him ?

[Alice Purjorick]

Their claims for recompense for the effects of the libels on their other children and for the damage that has been done to the search for Madeleine were rejected by the lower court.

Did they ever read and understand that judgement? Perhaps they should because they seem to have either misunderstood it or been misinformed as to why they were awarded damages.

Spending yet more money on an appeal is surely inadvisable unless they understand why they won in the first court and why the judgement was overturned on appeal.

Unless they fully understand their position it may well end up being about money when they are asked to pay what they could end up owing for the costs relating to the overturned injunction, the costs of the two hearings so far, and, possibly, the costs of a Supreme Court appeal if they lose again.

Judging by the comment on the website did they understand the most recent judgment?
Reference is made to libel but no libel has been proved either in the first trial or this one.

[Lace]

I have revisited Lace's post and highlighted why her 'facts' need supporting.

In reply to your 'facts'; the Appeal Court did not take the view that a retired police officer was bound by the laws of secrecy. Until another judgement is made that is no longer a fact. They thought there was no problem with him having a theory based on the facts of the investigation, or with him publishing his theory in his book. 

Quote from: Lace on Today at 09:15:46 AM
It doesn't stray from the fact that Amaral started the hostility towards the McCann's, [Cite that he started it?] that he was writing his book whilst still a Police Officer, [Retired] that details were leaked which shouldn't have been under Portuguese strict confidentiality law [Cite that it was him wot did it]and that he lied in his book about the DNA and the fact the McCann's drugged their daughter. [Part of his theory?]  We'll see.

Police sources tell tabloid reporters that the DNA tests are a "100% match" and the media swiftly turn on the McCanns.

There,  how about that?    now to whom were the DNA results sent?

As for him being retired when he wrote his book,  when did the book go in to be published?   There was a bit about this in the court case and the Judge said he broke the secrecy laws.

He states his theory as the truth though doesn't he?    what does 'The TRUTH of the Lie'   mean?    At the start of his video he says,   'Let me tell you what really happened'.

[Mr Gray]

Judging by the comment on the website did they understand the most recent judgment?
Reference is made to libel but no libel has been proved either in the first trial or this one.

they just can't stop telling lies can they..it's almost pathological

[ferryman]

I've read the full judgement.

I don't think there's too much doubt that Dr Amaral should keep the cork firmly in place inside the bottle.

This judgement glosses over/ignores/disregards that Amaral breached judicial secrecy in writing his book, and thus did not (contrary to the assertion of this judgement) create the 'free market place of exchange of ideas' to which this judgement (essentially) appeals: whereby Amaral and Kate and Gerry could exchange views, insults, opinions (and all the rest) without fear of legal reprisal (on either side).

Because it is clearly and unequivocally established that Amaral did breach judicial secrecy, that state (of virtual annulment of the usual rules of libel) simply doesn't apply.

I predict that Isabel will drive a coach-and-horses through this judgement.

[G-Unit]

Police sources tell tabloid reporters that the DNA tests are a "100% match" and the media swiftly turn on the McCanns.

There,  how about that?    now to whom were the DNA results sent?

As for him being retired when he wrote his book,  when did the book go in to be published?   There was a bit about this in the court case and the Judge said he broke the secrecy laws.

He states his theory as the truth though doesn't he?    what does 'The TRUTH of the Lie'   mean?    At the start of his video he says,   'Let me tell you what really happened'.

So are you saying that when someone said 'the police source' they actually meant 'Amaral'? How clever of you. If you're able to work that out, perhaps you tell me who 'a source close to the McCanns' is?

Whatever the judge of the lower court said has been overturned by the judges of the Appeal Court. Amaral did not break any secrecy laws.

I think the lie was the abduction story, the truth was what really happened to Madeleine.

[Carana]

I've read the full judgement.

I don't think there's too much doubt that Dr Amaral should keep the cork firmly in place inside the bottle.

This judgement glosses over/ignores/disregards that Amaral breached judicial secrecy in writing his book, and thus did not (contrary to the assertion of this judgement) create the 'free market place of exchange of ideas' to which this judgement (essentially) appeals: whereby Amaral and Kate and Gerry could exchange views, insults, opinions (and all the rest) without fear of legal reprisal (on either side).

Because it is clearly and unequivocally established that Amaral did breach judicial secrecy, that state (of virtual annulment of the usual rules of libel) simply doesn't apply.

I predict that Isabel will drive a coach-and-horses through this judgement.

There are several points that I find odd in this ruling.

One to start with:

The point concerning how the publishers could have possibly turned around a raw manuscript and churned it into a book, complete with photoshopped line drawings of the original file photos and had the book laid out and printed and on sale within days without have broken judicial secrecy doesn't appear to have been addressed.

[jassi]

There are several points that I find odd in this ruling.

One to start with:

The point concerning how the publishers could have possibly turned around a raw manuscript and churned it into a book, complete with photoshopped line drawings of the original file photos and had the book laid out and printed and on sale within days without have broken judicial secrecy doesn't appear to have been addressed.

Nothing to concern us, really, as it's all in the hands of lawyers. 

We'll know within a month if an appeal has been submitted. If not, it will be of no importance.

[Alice Purjorick]

There are several points that I find odd in this ruling.

One to start with:

The point concerning how the publishers could have possibly turned around a raw manuscript and churned it into a book, complete with photoshopped line drawings of the original file photos and had the book laid out and printed and on sale within days without have broken judicial secrecy doesn't appear to have been addressed.

Was he being charged with having broken judicial secrecy ? if not it has no relevance.
The issue was: were the files released before Sr Amarals book was on sale

[ferryman]

Was he being charged with having broken judicial secrecy ? if not it has no relevance.
The issue was: were the files released before Sr Amarals book was on sale

Wrong, on all counts.

The issue is whether Amaral breached judicial secrecy (in writing his book)

Amaral breached judicial secrecy (in writing his book).

Therefore the likelihood is that the supreme court will re-instate the decision of the first-instance court.

[jassi]

I guess we need to wait and see if it goes that far.

[G-Unit]

I've read the full judgement.

I don't think there's too much doubt that Dr Amaral should keep the cork firmly in place inside the bottle.

This judgement glosses over/ignores/disregards that Amaral breached judicial secrecy in writing his book, and thus did not (contrary to the assertion of this judgement) create the 'free market place of exchange of ideas' to which this judgement (essentially) appeals: whereby Amaral and Kate and Gerry could exchange views, insults, opinions (and all the rest) without fear of legal reprisal (on either side).

Because it is clearly and unequivocally established that Amaral did breach judicial secrecy, that state (of virtual annulment of the usual rules of libel) simply doesn't apply.

I predict that Isabel will drive a coach-and-horses through this judgement.

They've been saying that since 2010. They reported him to the PJ who didn't want to know. The Appeal Court threw it out this time too. The facts he used to support his theory were in the public domain, so were not secrets.

In effect, and independently of the reasons invoked by the appellant for the publication, it is hardly understandable that an employee, even more a retired one, would have to keep said duties of secrecy and reserve, thus being limited in the exercise of his right to an opinion, concerning the interpretation of facts that were already made public by the judiciary authority, and widely debated (in fact, largely by initiative of the intervenients themselves) in the national and international media.
http://pjga.blogspot.co.uk/

Perhaps you can provide a cite to refute mine?

[Carana]

Was he being charged with having broken judicial secrecy ? if not it has no relevance.
The issue was: were the files released before Sr Amarals book was on sale

It's a civil case, so he wasn't actually "charged" with anything.

How on earth the entire publishing process (from initial writing to manuscript editing to "line drawings" of file photos, to layout, proof-reading, printing and distribution) could have been completed with a book for sale on the shelves within a few days without violating judicial secrecy is beyond my comprehension.