Former Portuguese detective Gonçalo Amaral wins appeal in damages trial.

[ferryman]

Judges in the plural note, three of 'em like with a unanimous decision, notwithstanding the Appeal Court has "more rings up its sleeve" than the Court of First Instance.  So the Supreme Court awaits.

From the judgement:

And, under such terms, although the introductory note in the book invokes personal reasons, in a situation of conflict with the rights to a good name and reputation of the subjects of the appeal, the appellant [Gonçalo Amaral] could not benefit, faced with the results of the investigation, of a broad and full freedom of expression – and thus his conduct would be unlawful, under article 484 of the Civil Code.

 

From what was above said about this matter, it is clearly understood that such argumentation cannot be sustained.

 

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.

So the judges don't dispute that Amaral breached judicial secrecy.

Rather, they argue that as a civilian, not a policeman, he was entitled to breach judicial secrecy.

And concerning the part I underline, was Amaral under an obligation to offer accurate interpretation of the facts?

Or is he allowed to get away with claiming that he contradicted and corrected Prior on interpretation of the forensic results?

And that Prior rang the FSS to berate them on the PJ's powers of arrest?

Is Amaral allowed to get away with mangling and misinterpreting the role (in the investigation) of Mark Harrison?

Is Amaral allowed to get away with the outright lie that British officers, as well as Portuguese, thought the McCanns 'guilty'?

Is Amaral allowed to get away with misinterpreting the FSS as producing a 'preliminary' report (when they did no such thing) and producing a 'second' report "correcting" and "contradicting" the first, when John Lowe, actually, wrote Stuart Prior an explanatory email about one result (from the boot of the car)?

[stephen25000]

From the judgement:

So the judges don't dispute that Amaral breached judicial secrecy.

Rather, they argue that as a civilian, not a policeman, he was entitled to breach judicial secrecy.

And concerning the part I underline, was Amaral under an obligation to offer accurate interpretation of the facts?

Or is he allowed to get away with claiming that he contradicted and corrected Prior on interpretation of the forensic results?

And that Prior rang the FSS to berate them on the PJ's powers of arrest?

Is Amaral allowed to get away with mangling and misinterpreting the role (in the investigation) of Mark Harrison?

Is Amaral allowed to get away with the outright lie that British officers, as well as Portuguese, thought the McCanns 'guilty'?

Is Amaral allowed to get away with misinterpreting the FSS as producing a 'preliminary' report (when they did no such thing) and producing a 'second' report "correcting" and "contradicting" the first, when John Lowe, actually, wrote Stuart Prior an explanatory email about one result (from the boot of the car)?

What is it with you that you don't understand the judgenent ?

[jassi]

Fortunately, it is of no consequence whether Ferryman understands or not.

[ferryman]

Let's see.

It was not in the public domain, until people read Amaral's book, that Amaral contradicted and corrected Prior on interpretation of the forensic results.

It was not in the public domain, until people read Amaral's book, that Prior rang the FSS to berate them on the PJ's powers of arrest.

It was not in the public domain, and is neither in the files, that Mark Harrison switched the enquiry to one for a little girl assumed dead, and even hinted that her parents might be responsible for her death.

It is in the files, but contradicted by other stuff, also in the files, that Eddie 'scented death' all over the place.

[sadie]

What is it with you that you don't understand the judgenent ?

How would you like to answer Ferrymans points, Stephen, instead of just berating them ?

...

[stephen25000]

How would you like to answer Ferrymans points, Stephen, instead of just berating them ?

...

The answers he needs are in the judgement Sadie.

He simply ignores them

Have you read it ?

[Angelo222]

Let's see.

It was not in the public domain, until people read Amaral's book, that Amaral contradicted and corrected Prior on interpretation of the forensic results.

It was not in the public domain, until people read Amaral's book, that Prior rang the FSS to berate them on the PJ's powers of arrest.

It was not in the public domain, and is neither in the files, that Mark Harrison switched the enquiry to one for a little girl assumed dead, and even hinted that her parents might be responsible for her death.

It is in the files, but contradicted by other stuff, also in the files, that Eddie 'scented death' all over the place.

You have no idea what was really going on behind the scenes, you are basing your opinion purely on documents which found their way into the public domain.  The way I see it Amaral was being told things which conveniently became 'off the record'.

[Angelo222]

Fortunately, it is of no consequence whether Ferryman understands or not.

Ferryman thinks he knows Portuguese Law better than three senior judges.  What brothers him more than anything however is the fact that the McCanns are stuffed!   Hopefully Amaral will finish the job now that he has the upper hand.

[ferryman]

....concerning the interpretation of facts that were already made public by the judiciary authority, ...

In the process of pulication (preparing his book for sale) Amaral made facts public (to proof-readers, people who ran copies of the manuscript, people involved in the actual printing of the book.

Not many.

But some.

Are the rules governing how widespread breach of judicial secrecy has to be before it counts as a breach?

[Angelo222]

....concerning the interpretation of facts that were already made public by the judiciary authority, ...

In the process of pulication (preparing his book for sale) Amaral made facts public (to proof-readers, people who ran copies of the manuscript, people involved in the actual printing of the book.

Not many.

But some.

Are the rules governing how widespread breach of judicial secrecy has to be before it counts as a breach?

Let's face it ferryman, the McCanns have lost.  I predict they will quietly slink away once the Supreme Court refuses to hear their appeal and the ECHR finds no case to answer.

[sadie]

The answers he needs are in the judgement Sadie.

He simply ignores them

Have you read it ?

Come on Stephen

Let's have your analysis of what Ferryman is saying rather than berating him and sidestepping the issue ALWAYS

To remind you

From the judgement:

So the judges don't dispute that Amaral breached judicial secrecy.

Rather, they argue that as a civilian, not a policeman, he was entitled to breach judicial secrecy.

And concerning the part I underline, was Amaral under an obligation to offer accurate interpretation of the facts?

Or is he allowed to get away with claiming that he contradicted and corrected Prior on interpretation of the forensic results?

And that Prior rang the FSS to berate them on the PJ's powers of arrest?

Is Amaral allowed to get away with mangling and misinterpreting the role (in the investigation) of Mark Harrison?

Is Amaral allowed to get away with the outright lie that British officers, as well as Portuguese, thought the McCanns 'guilty'?

Is Amaral allowed to get away with misinterpreting the FSS as producing a 'preliminary' report (when they did no such thing) and producing a 'second' report "correcting" and "contradicting" the first, when John Lowe, actually, wrote Stuart Prior an explanatory email about one result (from the boot of the car)?

Now let's see your considered answer

[slartibartfast]

Please desist from libelling Amaral.

[stephen25000]

Come on Stephen

Let's have your analysis of what Ferryman is saying rather than berating him and sidestepping the issue ALWAYS

To remind you

Now let's see your considered answer

What part of the judgement do you or ferryman fail to understand ?

The Portuguese judges overturned the first award to the mccanns as the previous judge had not followed Portuguese law.

The mccanns through their actions negated any complaint.

The information Amaral used in his book was already in the public arena.

I'm afraid bleating about the judgement has become the epitome of 'throwing the toys out of the pram'.

Likewise ferryman's use of the description of the Portuguese state with the 'fascist' description he employs is nauseating and xenophobic.

Lastly Sadie, nothing you or ferryman can or will say, will change the judgement or it's nature.

It is time you woke up to the reality of the situation.

[Mr Gray]

Please desist from libelling Amaral.

could you explain why you support amaral libelling the mccans but call for posters here not to libel amaral

[carlymichelle]

could you explain why you support amaral libelling the mccans but call for posters here not to libel amaral

Because. Ga did nothing wrong