Former Portuguese detective Gonçalo Amaral wins appeal in damages trial.

[ferryman]

That principle you have found is a common law principle used in the UK and other associated countries. Portugal uses civil law, which is different.

Therefore it has no bearing on the ruling of the Appeal Court.

Civil law is very much part of the embodiment of English law.

[Alfie]

Was he ? It has never struck me that Amaral's primary reason for writing his book was to make money but then perhaps you know him better than me.

If he doesn't have a problem with his book being available for free on the internet why did he make the comment in a recent interview that all such online versions were illegal?  A strange choice of word for someone who is quite relaxed about his intellectual (sic) copyright being abused in such a manner.

[G-Unit]

Civil law is very much part of the embodiment of English law.

I don't think you fully understand the terms. There's a good explanation if you follow the link;

Most nations today follow one of two major legal traditions: common law or civil law. The common law tradition emerged in England during the Middle Ages and was applied within British colonies across continents. The civil law tradition developed in continental Europe at the same time and was applied in the colonies of European imperial powers such as Spain and Portugal.
https://www.law.berkeley.edu/library/robbins/CommonLawCivilLawTraditions.html

[jassi]

If he doesn't have a problem with his book being available for free on the internet why did he make the comment in a recent interview that all such online versions were illegal?  A strange choice of word for someone who is quite relaxed about his intellectual (sic) copyright being abused in such a manner.

I would think it might be to do with legal defence. If people are reading an unauthorised, illegal translation, then he cannot be held responsible for the book's contents.

[Jean-Pierre]

Civil law is very much part of the embodiment of English law.

English Law is based on common law, where precedent prevails.  Where the common law is patently unfair then equitable (i.e. codified) remedies are introduced.

Most European countries are based on roman or civil law, which is codified.  Precedent does not apply, so there is no obligation on a court to follow the decision of any other court.

In very simplistic terms, one can say that in the UK everything is permitted except that which is expressly forbidden.

In Europe, everything is forbidden except that which is expressly permitted. 

[Alfie]

I would think it might be to do with legal defence. If people are reading an unauthorised, illegal translation, then he cannot be held responsible for the book's contents.

So there's another reason to be not very happy - not only is your book (normal selling price a snip at £17.75 http://www.portuguesebookshop.co.uk/portuguesebooks/9789898174123 ) freely available for all to read on the net, but it's also been possibly mistranslated and so not an accurate reflection of his magnum oopus (sic).

[ShiningInLuz]

In another thread Ferryman posted "... Of the course the book harmed the search for Madeleine by stating, categorically, that Madeleine is dead and telling people (who read it) the McCanns knew she was dead. ... "

I asked for info about the 'categorically'.

Ferryman was kind enough to direct me to the final chapter of TOTL, which I have now re-read, so here is my response.

The final chapter, chapter 23, at least in English, would probably fall foul of current moderation re libel, as applied in this forum.

His view on Jane Tanner's statement is sailing close to the wind.  "Jane Tanner's witness statement in favour of the theory of abduction is probably false: little by little it has lost all credibility because of successive modifications introduced by Jane, modifications that have ended up invalidating it."  On balance, I think it would scrape through on a combo of 'probably', plus the supporting evidence.

His cherry picking re dogs and lab evidence would probably get flushed, so I will not quote it.  Suffice to say he is mistakenly depicting the dogs and does not cover final lab evidence.

I'm not aware of what the actual position was when Amaral was taken off the case.  Is this an 'accurate' reflection of what was known in the investigation at the time, or is it not only inaccurate but also was known to be inaccurate at the time?

Possibly the crunchiest bit starts  "The conclusions my team and I have arrived at are the following:"

Without going into detail, a summary involves Madeleine dying (probably by accident) and the McCanns being involved in concealment of the body.

This happens to be a theorem.  It happens to be a theorem that appears to have some public support.  It happens to be one of several theories that have some public support.

So for me, the test is simple.  Did Gonçalo and team arrive at such conclusions?  Not, are the conclusions accurate or inaccurate.  Not do they stand up to scrutiny with 2016 knowledge.  Not even did they stack up at the time Mr Amaral was removed.  Just does it accurately reflect the thinking of Amaral et al whenever he got hoiked in 2007?

I do not know, under Portuguese or English defamations laws, how long you can keep repeating a 2007 view without making clear it reflects a 2007 position.

I think Mr Amaral would need a minor revision of chapter 23 to get it through current libel laws, and to get it past moderation on this forum.  However, I don't think the original book has any mileage left in it as a commercial product, so I think it will drift into the history of 2008.

[jassi]

So there's another reason to be not very happy - not only is your book (normal selling price a snip at £17.75 http://www.portuguesebookshop.co.uk/portuguesebooks/9789898174123 ) freely available for all to read on the net, but it's also been possibly mistranslated and so not an accurate reflection of his magnum oopus (sic).

That's his problem, not mine.

[Alfie]

That's his problem, not mine.

Really?  You don't say!  Did I ever suggest it was your problem, not his? 

[ferryman]

In another thread Ferryman posted "... Of the course the book harmed the search for Madeleine by stating, categorically, that Madeleine is dead and telling people (who read it) the McCanns knew she was dead. ... "

I asked for info about the 'categorically'.

Ferryman was kind enough to direct me to the final chapter of TOTL, which I have now re-read, so here is my response.

The final chapter, chapter 23, at least in English, would probably fall foul of current moderation re libel, as applied in this forum.

His view on Jane Tanner's statement is sailing close to the wind.  "Jane Tanner's witness statement in favour of the theory of abduction is probably false: little by little it has lost all credibility because of successive modifications introduced by Jane, modifications that have ended up invalidating it."  On balance, I think it would scrape through on a combo of 'probably', plus the supporting evidence.

His cherry picking re dogs and lab evidence would probably get flushed, so I will not quote it.  Suffice to say he is mistakenly depicting the dogs and does not cover final lab evidence.

I'm not aware of what the actual position was when Amaral was taken off the case.  Is this an 'accurate' reflection of what was known in the investigation at the time, or is it not only inaccurate but also was known to be inaccurate at the time?

Possibly the crunchiest bit starts  "The conclusions my team and I have arrived at are the following:"

Without going into detail, a summary involves Madeleine dying (probably by accident) and the McCanns being involved in concealment of the body.

This happens to be a theorem.  It happens to be a theorem that appears to have some public support.  It happens to be one of several theories that have some public support.

So for me, the test is simple.  Did Gonçalo and team arrive at such conclusions?  Not, are the conclusions accurate or inaccurate.  Not do they stand up to scrutiny with 2016 knowledge.  Not even did they stack up at the time Mr Amaral was removed.  Just does it accurately reflect the thinking of Amaral et al whenever he got hoiked in 2007?

I do not know, under Portuguese or English defamations laws, how long you can keep repeating a 2007 view without making clear it reflects a 2007 position.

I think Mr Amaral would need a minor revision of chapter 23 to get it through current libel laws, and to get it past moderation on this forum.  However, I don't think the original book has any mileage left in it as a commercial product, so I think it will drift into the history of 2008.

Thoughtful post.

In response to the part I underline, there is no evidence that Mark Harrison ever considered that Madeleine was dead; indeed evidence that he never reached a firm conclusion (in direct contravention of Amaral's assertion in his book).

Almeida did; doubtless Amaral with him.  We know that Joao Carlos (briefly) did, but changed his mind (and amended with a genuinely fine final PJ report, just before the archiving.)

What is meant when it says that Amaral's book is based on the files is that Amaral's book is based on Almeida's report.

It largely is; but emphatically not Joao Carlos's final report; still less the archiving despatch, both written after Amaral was removed from the investigation (is that, by Portuguese law, a mitigation in favour of Amaral? I've no idea).

[Miss Taken Identity]

I don't suppose he gives a rat's wotsit. He has enough dosh to fund the latest round of the legal hooha and the message about his thesis is getting out there in spades.
I would call that a result.

Oh I would go one further and say  WOW -81million all learning bout his thesis, Grrrrrreat result!

 oh dearie me McCanns should give up with the foot ball they just seem to be playing by their own rules and achieving own goals when they attack the 'opposition'  Tsk

[Mr Gray]

In another thread Ferryman posted "... Of the course the book harmed the search for Madeleine by stating, categorically, that Madeleine is dead and telling people (who read it) the McCanns knew she was dead. ... "

I asked for info about the 'categorically'.

Ferryman was kind enough to direct me to the final chapter of TOTL, which I have now re-read, so here is my response.

The final chapter, chapter 23, at least in English, would probably fall foul of current moderation re libel, as applied in this forum.

His view on Jane Tanner's statement is sailing close to the wind.  "Jane Tanner's witness statement in favour of the theory of abduction is probably false: little by little it has lost all credibility because of successive modifications introduced by Jane, modifications that have ended up invalidating it."  On balance, I think it would scrape through on a combo of 'probably', plus the supporting evidence.

His cherry picking re dogs and lab evidence would probably get flushed, so I will not quote it.  Suffice to say he is mistakenly depicting the dogs and does not cover final lab evidence.

I'm not aware of what the actual position was when Amaral was taken off the case.  Is this an 'accurate' reflection of what was known in the investigation at the time, or is it not only inaccurate but also was known to be inaccurate at the time?

Possibly the crunchiest bit starts  "The conclusions my team and I have arrived at are the following:"

Without going into detail, a summary involves Madeleine dying (probably by accident) and the McCanns being involved in concealment of the body.

This happens to be a theorem.  It happens to be a theorem that appears to have some public support.  It happens to be one of several theories that have some public support.

So for me, the test is simple.  Did Gonçalo and team arrive at such conclusions?  Not, are the conclusions accurate or inaccurate.  Not do they stand up to scrutiny with 2016 knowledge.  Not even did they stack up at the time Mr Amaral was removed.  Just does it accurately reflect the thinking of Amaral et al whenever he got hoiked in 2007?

I do not know, under Portuguese or English defamations laws, how long you can keep repeating a 2007 view without making clear it reflects a 2007 position.

I think Mr Amaral would need a minor revision of chapter 23 to get it through current libel laws, and to get it past moderation on this forum.  However, I don't think the original book has any mileage left in it as a commercial product, so I think it will drift into the history of 2008.

the book contains this passage..

English and Portuguese police get together to analyse the results of Eddie and Keela's searches.

- What we can deduce at this stage is that only the McCanns are implicated. The dogs did not detect blood or cadaver odour other than with them.

- From now on we have the certainty that there was a body behind the sofa before being taken into the parents' bedroom.

- If the blood found behind the sofa is that of the little girl, we can assume that she died there.

Amaral states with certainty there was a body behind the sofa before being taken into the parents bedroom...no theorem...with certainty...you have read the book 3 times...have you not noticed this


amaral goes on to say this body is maddie...how anyone can say that amaral stating this has not harmed the search is beyond comprehension

[jassi]

In what way has it harmed the 'search'

[Alfie]

In what way has it harmed the 'search'

If Amaral and his team concluded in the Summer of 2007 that Madeleine had certainly died in the apartment perhaps you can tell me why they would put any serious effort into following up potential leads which suggested a different scenario?

[G-Unit]

In what way has it harmed the 'search'

Not in the slightest. Not proven. That ship has sailed. It will not be considered by the Supreme Court.