Former Portuguese detective Gonçalo Amaral wins appeal in damages trial.

[Mr Gray]

I think that SY believe the same as the PJ did in September 2007.

I think you are totally mistaken

[ferryman]

I think you are totally mistaken

Think be hanged.

Montclaire is wrong.

[Mr Gray]

It is simply staggering how many things you get wrong.

The only ones blowing a gasket are the mccanns and supporters like you.

tell me what I have got wrong...it will be a very short post..I predicted last May Amaral may well win this round but taht appeals would drag on...correct

[Mr Gray]

Think be hanged.

Montclaire is wrong.

Montclaire is totally wrong and has nothing to support her statement

[stephen25000]

tell me what I have got wrong...it will be a very short post..I predicted last May Amaral may well win this round but taht appeals would drag on...correct

You said, maybe he would, or maybe he wouldn't.

Basically you said b....r all.

However, your hatred of Amaral IMO , is just like the mccanns.

[Brietta]

I think that SY believe the same as the PJ did in September 2007.

Is that the conclusion of the competent Rebelo investigation?  I think not.

[ferryman]

Montclaire is totally wrong and has nothing to support her statement

Not quite totally wrong.  (Elements of) the PJ (but emphatically never the English contingent of the joint investigation) thought (back in September 2007) that the McCanns were guilty.

One of those elements was Almeida who, much later, around the time that he testified in the libel trial, recanted of that view.

[Mr Gray]

You said, maybe he would, or maybe he wouldn't.

Basically you said b....r all.

However, your hatred of Amaral, is just like the mccanns.

i didn't say that so cite or remove...if someone else posted that you would accuse them of lying...so cite

[Alice Purjorick]

Not a sticking-point at all.

The book was published after the files were released.

Breach of judicial secrecy (in preparing the book for publication) occurred before publication (and release to the general public) of the book.

The judge at the court of first-instance understood that, and that's why she handed down the judgement she did.

The appeal-court judges ignored that point.

Let us hope the court of further appeal (the Supreme Court) address and remedy that anomaly.

Judicial secrecy is not the issue being tried.
The original judge made it quite clear in her judgment why she was ruling as she did and it had b***r all to do with judicial secrecy.

[stephen25000]

i didn't say that so cite or remove...if someone else posted that you would accuse them of lying...so cite

I have amended it to IMO, that is as much as you will get.

Have you accused me , by the way , of hating the mccanns ?

[ferryman]

Judicial secrecy is not the issue being tried.
The original judge made it quite clear in her judgment why she was ruling as she did and it had b***r all to do with judicial secrecy.

Having established that judicial secrecy had been breached, she tested the truth (or untruth) of the claims of Amaral's book with what is written in the files.

[stephen25000]

Having established that judicial secrecy had been breached, she tested the truth (or untruth) of the claims of Amaral's book with what is written in the files.

Well, the 3 judges have said different.

[ferryman]

Well, the 3 judges have said different.

Why do you think the first-instance judge handed down the judgement she did if she was convinced that Amaral had not breached judicial secrecy?

To be clear, if Amaral did not breach judicial secrecy, he has no case to answer and the McCanns' action is in vain.

[stephen25000]

Why do you think the first-instance judge handed down the judgement she did if she was convinced that Amaral had not breached judicial secrecy?

To be clear, if Amaral did not breach judicial secrecy, he has no case to answer and the McCanns' action is in vain.

Read the latest judgement.

[G-Unit]

Having established that judicial secrecy had been breached, she tested the truth (or untruth) of the claims of Amaral's book with what is written in the files.

The judge repeated pretty much what was said in the appeal judgement on the injunction;

the book that is at stake here, reproducing the contents of some of the case files, which also had an effect on the above mentioned final dispatch that was signed by two Public Ministry Magistrates.

In the book, we do not verify any reference to any facts that are not in that dispatch.
http://joana-morais.blogspot.com/2010/10/lisbon-appeals-court-ruling.html

From the libel' trial;

28.    (Items 27 & 28) It is proved that the facts in the book and in the documentary, concerning the investigation, are mostly facts that took place in the investigation and are documented as such. 

The Judge does note that some of the facts in the book are not complete, and some facts that are in the book are not in the case files, including Jane Tanner's alleged "informal" recognition of Robert Murat.