john does this mean the mcanns wont see any of the money for a long time??
Given the bottleneck in the Portuguese justice system this will undoubtedly take years to come to a conclusion. Hopefully by then the truth relating to Madeleine will be known.
I'd agree that the amount seems huge by PT standards, but so were Amaral's earnings. From what could be legally established, he earned €382k in around two years. Is that not an above average income for most Portuguese? Strangely, that fact isn't often mentioned, either.
Re: The judge did not agree, however, that the book had hindered the search for Madeleine
I accept that as a loose formulation, but the issue (IMO) is not that she disagreed, but there as no supporting evidence to the contrary.
john does this mean the mcanns wont see any of the money for a long time??
The Judgement implies that the damages were set at a level close to the potential profits made by Amaral. It is not specifically stated but the supporting cases and other cites suggests that that was her intent.
His statement that
“I find that the court’s decision is unfair and questions my right and every Portuguese citizen's right to freedom of expression and of opinion."
It certainly questions HIS right to do what he has done but does not impact on any other citizen not in possession of privileged information through their employment or otherwise breaking proferssional boundaries.
The facts on which the case is based will be difficult to overturn. He did accuse the Mccanns as guilty and he did use information gained from his privileged access.
In order to appeal he will have to show that reired police officers are allowed to call innocent people guilty and are allowed to use privileged information.
I doubt he will reach the bar to hearing vexatious cases.
so you think his request for appeal will be refused
I cannot see what his grounds for appeal could possibly be.
I cannot see what his grounds for appeal could possibly be.
Lets see what happens.
and if he is successful, this will go on for years to come.
there was such excitment about GA losing everything too wasnt there?? they should be careful what they wish for...
there was such excitment about GA losing everything too wasnt there?? they should be careful what they wish for...
Is he going to appeal against the fact that he was still a Police Officer when he wrote his book?
Good luck with that one.
The money should go where it rightly should in the fund for Madeleine.
Jumping the gun a bit, perhaps.
Amaral has the right to appeal.
Whether he has the ability to appeal remains to be seen.
He will need to establish grounds for appeal. And find a lawyer willing and able to take the case.
Time will tell.
Gonçalo Amaral already has a lawyer.
Mr Amaral's lawyers tend to come and go quite a bit ... he has parted company with a few. It remains to be seen how far the appeal process will progress, but it cannot be denied he is starting off on the back foot as it seems he is yesterday's man in the court of public opinion which most sceptics back hands down.
What you or I or the public at large think of Dr Amaral is irrelevant. It will be a matter of law.
Unless of course in Portugal there is a requirement to grab a gash hand off the street and say "ere mate give us a verdict on this will ya?". Even the most biased supporter cannot believe that will be the case.
Amaral is basically bankrupt...both financially and morally. He has been humiliated totally by the court in his own country. He has a choice of handing all his money to the McCanns or appealing. The appeal won't cost him apenny because he has nothing. He can count on the financial support of a handful of misguided supporters and who knows...if an appeal is allowed he just may get a better result next time...and if he doesn't...he has lost nothing
His assets seized for now. Clearly yes.
The mccanns going to get money from him , doesn't look like it.
Mind you,increasing legal bills for sure, which will mount , year after year, with appeal after appeal, all the way to the European Court of Human Rights.
and that going by the backlog of nearly 70,000 cases, is a fiar way in the future.
We have seen an example of Portuguese Law in operation with Judge Maria Emilia de Melo e Castro presiding.
I doubt she has left many opportunities to appeal her decision so I rather suspect the auspices are less than favourable for such.
However it will be of interest to see what unfolds.
What has become very clear from her ruling is the rather tawdry circumstance in which the accusatory book was written; the author discarding integrity to make a quick buck while denigrating the presumption of innocence which as a law officer he was obliged to uphold.
To me that reads like a law enforcement officer with a contempt for the law, you put whatever interpretation on it you wish.
If you are happy to support such an individual that is fine by me ... but do try to keep your personal little digs out of your posts to me ... utterly tiresome and sooooo playgroundy.
His assets seized for now. Clearly yes.
The mccanns going to get money from him , doesn't look like it.
Mind you,increasing legal bills for sure, which will mount , year after year, with appeal after appeal, all the way to the European Court of Human Rights.
and that going by the backlog of nearly 70,000 cases, is a fiar way in the future.
One can only appeal if one has grounds.
One can only appeal to the ECHR if it is a matter of Human Rights- it is not a Supreme Court, only a Tribunal interpreting the European Convention.
Legal Costs also build on each side. In Portugal I understand that lawyers fees are paid by each side and there are rarely costs awarded against one side alone.
I can see no easy grounds for appeal- appeals are not automatic and require permission.
I understand that the McCanns are indemnified for their legal costs a d Amaral is not.
I think it may be over bar the shouting.
One can only appeal if one has grounds.
One can only appeal to the ECHR if it is a matter of Human Rights- it is not a Supreme Court, only a Tribunal interpreting the European Convention.
Legal Costs also build on each side. In Portugal I understand that lawyers fees are paid by each side and there are rarely costs awarded against one side alone.
I can see no easy grounds for appeal- appeals are not automatic and require permission.
I understand that the McCanns are indemnified for their legal costs a d Amaral is not.
I think it may be over bar the shouting.
Well we will soon find out if Amaral has grounds for appeal.
Does their indemnity extend to the Portuguese case ?
As Amaral was able to successfully appeal against the original banning of the book, an appeal is possible.
Also, the judge made their own interpretation of the law, and there is no guarantee that an appeal judge, if one happens will make the same decisions.
Likewise the sheer size of the financial award seems unprecedented in Portugal. He could possibly be entitled to make an appeal on those grounds.
Are there any comparable cases in Portuguese history ?
There was a clear route to appeal the banning of the book as it involved a Human Rights issue.
Every country I know of places restrictions on the use of privileged information and the argument that all officers of the legal system are duty bound to promote the innocence of people unless acting formally in the role of prosecution.
For instance it is legal to state as truth in court that a person has committed a crime. But if the person steps out of the role and says that in public it becomes not only Libel but also a breach of their official duties and hence actionable for damages.
The judge examines the question of damages very carefully and makes an impressive case.
There was a clear route to appeal the banning of the book as it involved a Human Rights issue.
Every country I know of places restrictions on the use of privileged information and the argument that all officers of the legal system are duty bound to promote the innocence of people unless acting formally in the role of prosecution.
For instance it is legal to state as truth in court that a person has committed a crime. But if the person steps out of the role and says that in public it becomes not only Libel but also a breach of their official duties and hence actionable for damages.
The judge examines the question of damages very carefully and makes an impressive case.
Perhaps this is what will allow an appeal to be made?
8. Appeal
8.1 Grounds for appeal
The general rule is that a party may appeal to the court of second instance (“Tribunal da Relação”) when the value of the lawsuit is higher than EUR5,000 and the decision is unfavourable to the appealing party in an amount higher than EUR2,500.01 (Cf. Article 629 of the CPC). The court of second instance decides both on legal and factual issues.
A party may appeal to the Supreme Court when the value of the lawsuit is higher than EUR30,000 and the decision is unfavourable to the appealing party in an amount higher than EUR15,000.01.
The Supreme Court only rules on legal issues and, in most cases, cannot revoke the second instance judgment concerning the proven facts.
In most cases the parties cannot move to the Supreme Court if the first and the second instance courts have issued identical decisions with similar grounds.
The general rule is that the appeal does not suspend the proceedings unless the appealing party pays a deposit or presents a bank guarantee.
http://www.chambersandpartners.com/guide/practice-guides/location/241/6617/1422-200#questiongroup_299
We shall see in the course of the next few months if there is to be an appeal.
How much of the information in the book was already in the public domain already ?
Clearly he began to write the book before he left the police, but as is known, the book was published after he left.
He clearly was not the only person who has accused the mccanns of hiding her body ?
Why haven't the mccanns taken to court anyone else who has said the same thing ?
and as you well know the case of the cause of Madeleine's disappearance remains unknown.
I don't hate amaral...I hate what he stands for....injustice...I just can't stand it.
It does not matter how much privileged information was used. Additionally the judge made a lot of the fact that the book was published only days after the release of the files, meaning that Amaral must have used his access to privileged material to write the book.
He was the only person who was an officer of the state to do so outwith their official role.
The fate of Madeleine is immaterial.
We have seen an example of Portuguese Law in operation with Judge Maria Emilia de Melo e Castro presiding.
I doubt she has left many opportunities to appeal her decision so I rather suspect the auspices are less than favourable for such.
However it will be of interest to see what unfolds.
What has become very clear from her ruling is the rather tawdry circumstance in which the accusatory book was written; the author discarding integrity to make a quick buck while denigrating the presumption of innocence which as a law officer he was obliged to uphold.
To me that reads like a law enforcement officer with a contempt for the law, you put whatever interpretation on it you wish.
If you are happy to support such an individual that is fine by me ... but do try to keep your personal little digs out of your posts to me ... utterly tiresome and sooooo playgroundy.
How does he stand for injustice?
Precisely what privileged information did he use ?
Amaral is basically bankrupt...both financially and morally. He has been humiliated totally by the court in his own country. He has a choice of handing all his money to the McCanns or appealing. The appeal won't cost him apenny because he has nothing. He can count on the financial support of a handful of misguided supporters and who knows...if an appeal is allowed he just may get a better result next time...and if he doesn't...he has lost nothing
to promote someones guilt when the evidence does not support it
Amaral and his colleagues looked at the evidence and came to a conclusion. Others have expressed doubts about the happenings of 3rd may 2007. John Stalker thought those involved were hiding something, but he didn't know what. Prof. Barclay mentioned 'staging' of the abduction scenario. Amaral and his colleagues were and are not alone in drawing different conclusions from yours. That doesn't make them wrong and you right, it just means they are drawing conclusions which you disagree with.
I believe that Gonçalo Amaral has plenty of reasons to appeal the dog's dinner of a ruling which repeated most of the arguments from February 2010 and which was overturned by the Tribunal de Relação.
How can this judge in a civil case decide that GA is guilty of abusing his position as a policeman, 7 years after the fact, when he has never been censured by the PJ hierarchy, even after the book came out? Furthermore, her verdict has totally contradicted and overturned rulings made by a higher court which is legally unsustainable.
amaral and his colleagues misunderstood the evidence...that's a crime in itself....when the PJ had the results of the dna they realised there was no case against the mccanns.....amaral still thinks there is
professor Barclay made his statements having heard the false leaked dna reports and before hearing the correct results. he also only discussed parental involvement as one possibility and did not accuse the mccanns of anything..
amaral directly accused the mccanns of being involved in maddies death..he si a disgrace and deserves his punishment
Whatever one's bias in real terms that is gamble worth taking. Risking someone elses money to get out from under is a heaven sent opportunity. Cutting out all the moral and legal claptrap it is a good deal; when push comes to shove I don't see many people turning that down. With the possible exception of the Amish and The We Free of course
Amaral and his colleagues looked at the evidence and came to a conclusion. Others have expressed doubts about the happenings of 3rd may 2007. John Stalker thought those involved were hiding something, but he didn't know what. Prof. Barclay mentioned 'staging' of the abduction scenario. Amaral and his colleagues were and are not alone in drawing different conclusions from yours. That doesn't make them wrong and you right, it just means they are drawing conclusions which you disagree with.
Misunderstanding the evidence is neither a crime nor a tort. Investigators have a privileged position and protection for their statements when working within that role.
What Amaral did was to continue to abuse his privilege after he had lost the protection.
@ Brietta
You said;
"In another post you gave a link which suggested what I think that may be his only avenue for appeal, which is the amount of the award.
If so … hardly worth the bother since it was his good name and honour which he said motivated him in the past.
I think both of those are irretrievably shredded"
You think that his good name and honour are 'shredded', but others don't. Donations to his legal fees are continuing.
He has not been found "guilty", he has been found liable - it is a tort not a crime. It has been found that his abuse of his duties as an officer of the legal system (even though retired) led to harm (both reputational and psychological) to the McCanns and consequently he must pay them damages to compensate.
The judgement does not overrule the SC judgement which concerned the clash of rights between ordinary citizens- hence why the Publishers and TV company were not sanctioned, but Amaral was.
The judgement does overrule the SC ruling because it does take into consideration the fact that Gonçalo Amaral was a retired public servant.
It does not overrule the SC decision. In law it could not.
The SC only considered whether straightforward possible defamation was counter balanced by a right to Freedom of Expression. It decided in favour of the latter if what was being expressed was an honest opinion. So there was no libel.
This judgement has decided that unlawful actions by a public servant can harm individuals, and those individuals are due damages for such a tort. That is nothing to do with libel, but to do with a duty of confidentiality.
Libel requires that the assertion be false. This judgement applies whatever the truth status of the material.
Let me give you an example:
Celebrity X visits a doctor and tests positive for HIV.
The doctor shares this with the press.
The information is true but still causes harm.
Because the information was privileged, the celebrity could sue for damages to counter the harm done.
It does not overrule the SC decision. In law it could not.
The SC only considered whether straightforward possible defamation was counter balanced by a right to Freedom of Expression. It decided in favour of the latter if what was being expressed was an honest opinion. So there was no libel.
This judgement has decided that unlawful actions by a public servant can harm individuals, and those individuals are due damages for such a tort. That is nothing to do with libel, but to do with a duty of confidentiality.
Libel requires that the assertion be false. This judgement applies whatever the truth status of the material.
Let me give you an example:
Celebrity X visits a doctor and tests positive for HIV.
The doctor shares this with the press.
The information is true but still causes harm.
Because the information was privileged, the celebrity could sue for damages to counter the harm done.
You seem to be suggesting that no public servant (At least in PT) can write their memoirs?
I am sure that those making donations to his legal fees are content to do so but it could be a long running thing for them if an appeal is allowed and he takes the process to exhaustion, which in theory could be several years down the line.
Sometimes it is better all round to accept defeat gracefully and allow everyone ~ including Mr Amaral ~ to get on with the important things in life.
Yes, I do believe the ruling of the Portuguese Court leaves his reputation in tatters; as a matter of interest what is the ratio of Portuguese doners to the cause in relation to British ones?
So the judge, in a civil case, has decided that Gonçalo Amaral's actions were unlawful?
The donors on the 'go fund me' page are varied. UK, Portugal, Australia, USA. If he doesn't appeal he will give all his money to the McCanns. If he appeals he may not. Makes sense to try it then imo.
(http://i19.servimg.com/u/f19/14/67/69/80/monste10.jpg)Hilarious - and every word true!
Monster who made a mint out of Madeliene
Snippet from paper.
Adoring women flock around him, chanting his name, throwing red roses and blowing him kisses.
Smiling and waving, their idol laps up the attention, posing for photos, signing autographs and even giving a lucky few a peck on the cheek.
For all the world you may have thought the man at the centre of of the fuss and flashing a diamond earring stud, was a ageing pop star greeting his fans at the stage door.
That is very useful.
So no appeal on Proven Facts.
Amaral was a retired police officer and he did use privileged information.
So the judgement is only open to appeal on grounds of interpretation of the law.
I think the irony is if he had made the book up, as some have claimed, rather than adhering to the information in the files then he would be home and dry now.
I think the irony is if he had made the book up, as some have claimed, rather than adhering to the information in the files then he would be home and dry now.
(http://i19.servimg.com/u/f19/14/67/69/80/monste10.jpg)
Monster who made a mint out of Madeliene
Snippet from paper.
Adoring women flock around him, chanting his name, throwing red roses and blowing him kisses.
Smiling and waving, their idol laps up the attention, posing for photos, signing autographs and even giving a lucky few a peck on the cheek.
For all the world you may have thought the man at the centre of of the fuss and flashing a diamond earring stud, was a ageing pop star greeting his fans at the stage door.
Where do they get this cr*p?
Where do they get this cr*p?
But certain supporters of a certain age and certain gender do flock around him and the PJ. Remember the 'nesting for the PJ' threads on the 3As?
Where do they get this cr*p?
Somewhat ironic final line there from Antonella Lazzeri there.
It's the Sun isn't it? Do they print anything else? Whoops! They serialised Kate's book didn't they? Me bad.
Not just bad dear G possitivly EVIL... you forgot to credit the SUN''s owner Murdoch and his other meja interest "Sky news...lololol OH and let's not forget the News of the World Newspaper who took money from the public which was for 'charities' but on closing down, it went to the 'fund' ... Spookie eh?
Anyway... monster? he is a monster? emotive words 'him making a mint' makes him a monster what words would describe those pathetic PR junkies Kate n Gerry? How much money, trips, special appearances have they enjoyed since the 'abduction'( not through a unlocked door- but a window) lol
Well, Maddies sad departure has brought good fortune to MR Murdoch and the McCanns- who did NOTHING to protect their daughter but did everything to protect their 'image' hahaha makes for a comedy- if a young child was not 'missing' .
Pots calling kettles black is a real irony
Bloo has already shared the verdict very well, however, Amaral was to pay damages NOT for libelling the parents, or for telling lies, but for having access to information he then used. Now, what we have here is someone being brought to court for a parking fine and being found innocent- but being jailed for knowing there was a parking bay... It makes no sence. At worst he breached confidentiality, nothing criminal in that!
But certain supporters of a certain age and certain gender do flock around him and the PJ. Remember the 'nesting for the PJ' threads on the 3As?
I always thought reputable reporters are supposed to report and not make personal comments. One could be forgiven for thinking that Antonella Lazzeri has her own agenda with self interest playing a big part in it.LOL, I looked at that and thought "blimey, Kate's put on a few pounds!". Antonella writes for the Sun which is well-known for using emotive language in its articles, nothing new there. There's nothing in her description of the adulation of Amaral, nor the details of his lifestyle and behaviour in the aftermath of his publishing success that isn't accurate though is there?
(http://www.gerrymccannsblogs.co.uk/images/Sun_Antonella_Lazzeri_meet_Gerry_McCann.jpg)
LOL, I looked at that and thought "blimey, Kate's put on a few pounds!". Antonella writes for the Sun which is well-known for using emotive language in its articles, nothing new there. There's nothing in her description of the adulation of Amaral, nor the details of his lifestyle and behaviour in the aftermath of his publishing success that isn't accurate though is there?
I always thought reputable reporters are supposed to report and not make personal comments. One could be forgiven for thinking that Antonella Lazzeri has her own agenda with self interest playing a big part in it.
(http://www.gerrymccannsblogs.co.uk/images/Sun_Antonella_Lazzeri_meet_Gerry_McCann.jpg)
Sun reporter Antonella Lazzeri with Gerry McCann at the London Triathlon on 27 July 2013.
Her monster headline is in very bad taste but then as has already been said this is to be expected from a downmarket Murdoch rag.monster: An inhumanly cruel or wicked person. Personally I think it's quite accurate. Amaral chose to profit from the disappearance of a little girl by writing a book in which he painted her innocent parents as liars and villains. He has subsequently made a career out of vilifying those parents on TV and print for the best part of 8 years. Not only that, he has insisted that Madeleine is definitely dead, despite there being no evidence whatsoever to support this. Now consider (if you are able) that the McCanns are not liars, nor are they guilty of hiding their child's body in a hole and then driving the putrefying corpse around in a car 23 days later, consider the possibility that Madeleine isn't actually dead at all but awaiting discovery and reuniting with her family, then isn't "monster" a pretty accurate description of the person who has done what he has done to those two people? Admittedly there are better words to describe him IMO, but I doubt they'd get through the forum censor.
Rxcellent news. The http://www.gofundme.com/Legal-DefencePJGA appeal ( please give generously ) is at this moment careering towards the £6000 mark. Well done the Sun who helped inform the GBP of the appeal.
Could someone please explain the relevance of Michael Caplan having Pinochet among his list of clients?
Just looked at the donation site for Amaral. The Sun seems to have annoyed people. Quite a few say they're donating because of the Sun article.
Rather like with the McCanns, most of the population won't give a toss.
Just looked at the donation site for Amaral. The Sun seems to have annoyed people. Quite a few say they're donating because of the Sun article.
Agreed.
Most people are largely unworried about the McCanns or the actions of bullies and harassers.
But some people defend the bullish.
And some people defend the innocent.
Some look at the evidence and try to understand what happened. Some ignore the evidence or try to twist it to suit their own theories.
@Brietta
People seem to be promising monthly payments, so they would be in it for the long haul I expect.
Some look at the evidence and try to understand what happened. Some ignore the evidence or try to twist it to suit their own theories.
@Brietta
People seem to be promising monthly payments, so they would be in it for the long haul I expect.
Some look at the evidence and try to understand what happened. Some ignore the evidence or try to twist it to suit their own theories.
@Brietta
People seem to be promising monthly payments, so they would be in it for the long haul I expect.
and some of us actually understand the evidence....it really is amazing how much amaral got wrong
I don't know, but of course he was an expert on extradition and related matters, which he used to full effect when helping Pinochet;
"If it's decided in Portugal they should be tried, they will want advice as to fighting extradition or returning voluntarily," says Julian Knowles. The other area of law Mr Caplan specialises in is "mutual assistance" - the process where one country seeks the assistance of another in a criminal investigation. "The McCanns will want to know if the Portuguese police can turn up at their house and search it. Or can they get the English police to search it."
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/magazine/6995499.stm
The McCanns may well have been aware of the Cipriano case and having been lied to by the PJ....having been offered a deal if she confessed Kate really feared that the PJ were corrupt..and following amarals conviction she was correctAccording to information that I read on the internet in 2007/ 2008 Leandro Silva warned them about the goings on in The Cipriano case.
According to information that I read on the internet in 2007/ 2008 Leandro Silva warned them about the goings on in The Cipriano case.
I expect the Consulate would too.
The Portuguese legal system depended on violence for convictions for years. It had only just started recovering.
One can only appeal if one has grounds.
One can only appeal to the ECHR if it is a matter of Human Rights- it is not a Supreme Court, only a Tribunal interpreting the European Convention.
Legal Costs also build on each side. In Portugal I understand that lawyers fees are paid by each side and there are rarely costs awarded against one side alone.
I can see no easy grounds for appeal- appeals are not automatic and require permission.
I understand that the McCanns are indemnified for their legal costs a d Amaral is not.
I think it may be over bar the shouting.
Could someone please explain the relevance of Michael Caplan having Pinochet among his list of clients?
and has nothing to do with the mccann case as neither were tortured, next
Torture does not need to happen. There just needs to be an atmosphere of coercion in the investigation process that allows the police to fit up innocent people.
General police behaviour in too many jurisdictions has been based on coerced confession of targeted individuals; this was the case generally in England until PACE limited the opportunities of the police to distort the system. It is not watertight as the case of Barry George and others demonstrate, but most of the tools of coercive policing have been removed. This is not the case in other jurisdictions such as the USA and many European countries and most third world countries that still use coercive investigation techniques.
If the McCanns had not been lawyered up and PR savvy, then I suspect that Kate McCann would have been forced to 'confess' to a minor crime to clear the case up- more important to the police than seeking justice.
The reported bargaining over two years on jail for a lesser crime than murder supports this. As the lawyer said 'if you were Portuguese you would be locked up by now.' Locked up coerced, bullied and demeaned, maybe even accidentally falling downstairs.
Amaral became very frustrated and saw his last chance to detain her because the following week be would have to give reasonable grounds to a court and be knew be did not have them. She was arguidoed and targeted with threats about never seeing her children and offered a way out by serving two years. She stood up to Amaral and the case collapsed.
No. That is your bias.
"While he maintains a broad-based practice..."
Some cites or is it just more BS.
Torture does not need to happen. There just needs to be an atmosphere of coercion in the investigation process that allows the police to fit up innocent people.
General police behaviour in too many jurisdictions has been based on coerced confession of targeted individuals; this was the case generally in England until PACE limited the opportunities of the police to distort the system. It is not watertight as the case of Barry George and others demonstrate, but most of the tools of coercive policing have been removed. This is not the case in other jurisdictions such as the USA and many European countries and most third world countries that still use coercive investigation techniques.
If the McCanns had not been lawyered up and PR savvy, then I suspect that Kate McCann would have been forced to 'confess' to a minor crime to clear the case up- more important to the police than seeking justice.
The reported bargaining over two years on jail for a lesser crime than murder supports this. As the lawyer said 'if you were Portuguese you would be locked up by now.' Locked up coerced, bullied and demeaned, maybe even accidentally falling downstairs.
Amaral became very frustrated and saw his last chance to detain her because the following week be would have to give reasonable grounds to a court and be knew be did not have them. She was arguidoed and targeted with threats about never seeing her children and offered a way out by serving two years. She stood up to Amaral and the case collapsed.
Any scientific study of police behaviour in the Criminology section.Does this actually address what was being asked in the context of your post. You being big on context and all.
Many police memoirs which give the game away about what the situation was like before PACE.
Stephan Kiszco case.
Barry George Case
West Midland Serious Crime Squad.
Birmingham Six and other Irish accused.
The Black and Tans
Etc!
Does this actually address what was being asked in the context of your post. You being big on context and all.
Any scientific study of police behaviour in the Criminology section.
Many police memoirs which give the game away about what the situation was like before PACE.
Stephan Kiszco case.
Barry George Case
West Midland Serious Crime Squad.
Birmingham Six and other Irish accused.
The Black and Tans
Etc!
Pace became law in 1984. Barry George was convicted in 2001.
Next.....!
I know that. PACE has limited the abuse but it is not perfect.
It was also not law as you suggested when Barry George was arrested.
PACE was law when Barry George was charged with Jill Dane's murder.
You suggested it wasn't.
I did not.
The PACE reference is to the subject 'police memoirs'. You have read it to cover the other dreadful errors of British policing before the sea change of the past thirty years.
It is more than just PACE. English police now widely use cognitive interviewing, aimed not at a confession, but at fact finding to use as evidence.
So just your opinion then? therefore no more valid than any other opinion.
There is informed opinion and there is uninformed opinion, I prefer the former.
But choice to post the latter. Odd that.Talking about yourself, Faith?
seems more popular than the mccs fund.....some interesting comments too
http://portugalresident.com/brits-already-forking-out-en-masse-for-maddie-cop-libel-appeal
Brits already forking out en-masse for Maddie cop libel appeal
After what many consider the bombshell of a judicial decision last week, British supporters of the former Portuguese policeman ordered to pay the parents of Madeleine McCann €500,000 euros in damages are rallying to a “gofundme” online appeal for his legal defence.
Already widely reported is the fact that Gonçalo Amaral “will appeal to the last judicial instance” against the vast sum of damages awarded against him in the civil action for defamation taken out by Kate and Gerry McCann. But what few in Portugal may be aware of is that an online fund set up by a 22-year-old woman in Birmingham is already seeing money pouring in in Amaral’s defence.
At time of writing on Sunday morning, 315 people had donated over £5,000 to the Legal Defence for Gonçalo Amaral set up by Leanne Baulch, with all sorts leaving commentaries, including at least one introducing himself as a retired police officer.
Jill Parkin added her £10 donation to the fund, saying: “Please do not give up in your quest for justice and the truth. I believe you are a honourable man who has been badly wronged. I honestly do not know what happened in this case but someone is lying and someone out there does know”
Many donors’ comments allude to an article in today’s Sunday Sun that suggests Amaral is being funded by “British trolls”.
As Emma Mitchell, giving £100 commented: “Shame on you The Sun! ... Keep fighting GA , Madeleine deserves justice and so do you”.
Kirstene Glynn added her contribution, saying: “From yet another "nasty Internet troll" keep on fighting GA we're behind u all the way”.
While others stumping up for the appeal that hopes to raise £25,000 pointed out: “There is a battle going on in social media land to force this through to the mainstream” which, they claim, “for some reason” only publishes one side of this seemingly endless and long-running story.
Thus for now, Amaral is being buoyed by two online appeals both here and in UK as British media persist with 8th anniversary “Madeleine disappearance” stories, including “exposés” on Amaral’s so-called “fall from grace” and new “revelations about a string of burglaries on the Praia da Luz resort from which Madeleine went missing.
According to the Express on Sunday, a home Amaral had hoped to retire to in a “millionaires development” near Olhão has “been seized to to cover the McCann libel payout” and is now boarded up, the property of the courts.
The paper quotes an alleged friend, saying that everything Amaral has worked for “all his life, could be lost”.
As we wrote this article, another three people bolstered the gofundme appeal.
By the end of the day donations had leapt almost £500.
Another donation from someone who has actuall met Amaral.
" I have met Goncalo through work when he was in Portimao a year before Madeline went missing. He treated my colleague and I to a meal the first night we arrived there and was always asking if his officers were assisting us properly in our enquiries which they were. I found the Police in Portimao extremely professional and thorough and IT was as a result of Goncalo and his officers that our enquiries were 100% successful. Good luck if you read this Goncalo as I once said to you that "we are the biggest gang in the World"
Another donation from someone who has actuall met Amaral.
" I have met Goncalo through work when he was in Portimao a year before Madeline went missing. He treated my colleague and I to a meal the first night we arrived there and was always asking if his officers were assisting us properly in our enquiries which they were. I found the Police in Portimao extremely professional and thorough and IT was as a result of Goncalo and his officers that our enquiries were 100% successful. Good luck if you read this Goncalo as I once said to you that "we are the biggest gang in the World"
Gang? Goodness me.
I found this contribution from a donator on the gofindme site especially poignant Xtina
"I have decided to contrubute again to make this reach £8,000 this morning. My Nan's first husband died a young British soldier in the Battle of Dunkirk in WW2, leaving behind a wife & 3 children. He didn't make the ultimate sacrifice amidst abject fear & suffering for the people of the UK to be insulted, humiliated, called "sicko/online trolls", for standing up for freedom of speech, honesty, integrity & justice. Maurice, your life & death left a legacy that should never be forgotten. It's up the the public to be the voice of you & your fallen comrades now. We will be with Goncalo Amaral in this quest. Shame on the UK gutter press for labelling the people that have made over 460 donations to this page in such a derogatory way with such tacky, infantile venom. I'm fortunate, I can donate this money. Brenda Leyland cannot after being found dead, alone in a hotel room, days after being branded a "troll" like we all are now. She was publicly humiliated by UK MSM who doorstepped her, papped her, followed her & drove her to what I can only imagine must have been the darkest place imaginable & for what?? The police have officially stated there is no case to answer. Brenda was not a troll, official. Deepest love and light to all the justice & freedom seekers who are not here, we are your voice now xx.'
Yes, shame they can't donate without, the nasty remarks, and cloning of people. Makes it look like just another sceptic blog.
Another PT cop in "the biggest gang in the World"? %&5%£ £4%4%
Another donation from someone who has actuall met Amaral.
" I have met Goncalo through work when he was in Portimao a year before Madeline went missing. He treated my colleague and I to a meal the first night we arrived there and was always asking if his officers were assisting us properly in our enquiries which they were. I found the Police in Portimao extremely professional and thorough and IT was as a result of Goncalo and his officers that our enquiries were 100% successful. Good luck if you read this Goncalo as I once said to you that "we are the biggest gang in the World"
most if not all those contributing have believed amarals lies re the dog alerts and the DNA...if they understood the evidence I'm sure they would not be contributing
@)(++(*
most if not all those contributing have believed amarals lies re the dog alerts and the DNA...if they understood the evidence I'm sure they would not be contributing
most if not all those contributing have believed amarals lies re the dog alerts and the DNA...if they understood the evidence I'm sure they would not be contributingAn opinion that cannot be put to the test and I doubt if the cash register cares.
I'm a bit puzzled why a Portuguese man, who has been judged by a Portuguese Court to have dishonoured his duty of confidentiality as a former law officer and who has denied the victims of crime the presumption of innocence, is considered to be a victim, who needs financial support to appeal against his own country's courts.The fact is that every penny these trolls spend on a) supporting Amaral and b) writing hateful comments on Kate's fundraising page will end up benefiting either the Madeleine Fund or the Missing People charity, they're just too dumb to realise it.
I really do not know what type of person takes time out to denigrate with relish the mother of a missing child who hopes to participate in an event to raise money to help missing people and their relatives.
Everybody to their own I suppose.
The fact is that every penny these trolls spend on a) supporting Amaral and b) writing hateful comments on Kate's fundraising page will end up benefiting either the Madeleine Fund or the Missing People charity, they're just too dumb to realise it.
I'm a bit puzzled why a Portuguese man, who has been judged by a Portuguese Court to have dishonoured his duty of confidentiality as a former law officer and who has denied the victims of crime the presumption of innocence, is considered to be a victim, who needs financial support to appeal against his own country's courts.Re "financial support", the situation is so unbalanced. Is it fair that one side appears to have top UK and PT lawyers paid for by one or more rich funders, and the other side has absolutely no such funding?
I really do not know what type of person takes time out to denigrate with relish the mother of a missing child who hopes to participate in an event to raise money to help missing people and their relatives.
Everybody to their own I suppose.
Re "financial support", the situation is so unbalanced. Is it fair that one side appears to have top UK and PT lawyers paid for by one or more rich funders, and the other side has absolutely no such funding?
As it happens Pegasus I agree with you on this. Which is one of the reasons why I have made contributions to both the original defence fund and to this one, and would urge all who care about justice to do the same.I don't think there is any justice involved in the support of a man who accuses two parents of criminal activity when the evidence does not support him
It doesn't matter what we think, though, does it? The fact is that people are supporting Amaral for a variety of reasons as is their right. The post quoted seems to sum up how people feel;I'd like to see some evidence for the claim that thousands of people who donated to the Madeleine Fund believed that ALL their funds were going to be used to search for the missing child. People usually make donations in such cases unconditionally, as a show of support and sympathy, hence why money continued to be sentinto the April Jones Fund long after it was apparent she was never coming back.
Truth and justice - an excellent mantra to live by. Everything I have read and seen regarding Dr Goncalo Amaral show him to be an honourable man. I can't say the same for the McCanns. British MSM is below contempt and always has been. Thousands of people have donated millions of pounds in the misheld belief that it was ALL going to be used to help to find a missing little girl (or be donated to other worthy children's charities) and NOT to personally attack those individuals who questioned the McCanns' version of events. It was not intended to be a prosecution/protection fund. And, the questioning is completely valid - there is ample evidence (even in the public arena) to doubt 'the official line' that we are being fed from some quarters. I am donating in the full knowledge that this is going towards a legal defence - I'm more than happy to do so. Good luck Snr. Amaral - you have the respect and gratitude of a great deal of people in the UK for standing tall with dignity.
It doesn't matter what we think, though, does it? The fact is that people are supporting Amaral for a variety of reasons as is their right. The post quoted seems to sum up how people feel;
Truth and justice - an excellent mantra to live by. Everything I have read and seen regarding Dr Goncalo Amaral show him to be an honourable man. I can't say the same for the McCanns. British MSM is below contempt and always has been. Thousands of people have donated millions of pounds in the misheld belief that it was ALL going to be used to help to find a missing little girl (or be donated to other worthy children's charities) and NOT to personally attack those individuals who questioned the McCanns' version of events. It was not intended to be a prosecution/protection fund. And, the questioning is completely valid - there is ample evidence (even in the public arena) to doubt 'the official line' that we are being fed from some quarters. I am donating in the full knowledge that this is going towards a legal defence - I'm more than happy to do so. Good luck Snr. Amaral - you have the respect and gratitude of a great deal of people in the UK for standing tall with dignity.
Re "financial support", the situation is so unbalanced. Is it fair that one side appears to have top UK and PT lawyers paid for by one or more rich funders, and the other side has absolutely no such funding?
Re "financial support", the situation is so unbalanced. Is it fair that one side appears to have top UK and PT lawyers paid for by one or more rich funders, and the other side has absolutely no such funding?Everyone is entitled to justice. There appear to be those who believe justice is only for their mates and those of similar viewpoints to themselves. That is scary when logical extension is applied.
Everyone is entitled to justice. There appear to be those who believe justice is only for their mates and those of similar viewpoints to themselves. That is scary when logical extension is applied.
Everyone is entitled to justice. There appear to be those who believe justice is only for their mates and those of similar viewpoints to themselves. That is scary when logical extension is applied.
What exactly do you think Judge Maria Emilia de Melo e Castro was dispensing in her Court?
What exactly do you think Judge Maria Emilia de Melo e Castro was dispensing in her Court?
She dispensed a verdict which is open to challenge in a higher court.
Whether or not it results in a different result remains to be seen.
It remains to be seen if the appeal is allowed as the judge was quite clear on the breaches of the law as applicable to a former police officer, which dictated her ruling.
If Goncalo Amaral's defence team are sanguine about that being overruled by another court and the appeal is allowed, contributors to the fund will have to continue to dig long and deep.
It remains to be seen if the appeal is allowed as the judge was quite clear on the breaches of the law as applicable to a former police officer, which dictated her ruling.
If Goncalo Amaral's defence team are sanguine about that being overruled by another court and the appeal is allowed, contributors to the fund will have to continue to dig long and deep.
I didn't mention specifics in my post but now you bring it up:
The judge dispensed justice on a point of law as she saw it giving the defendants the right of appeal to a higher court. According to justice the defendants are allowed their day in court if the higher court deems there are grounds for appeal. One defendant has limited resources and folk are raising money to assist him have his day in court. What happens beyond that is yet to be revealed.
That will be their choice. Do you have a problem with that?
If they don't care why should you worry about it or even comment on it ?
I suppose you were up in arms that the Kray's defence was funded from legal aid taxation?
Not my problem ... although I must admit to almost hysterical amusement as I read the comments accompanying the begging bowl set up to assist Mr Amaral.
Doing well though, isn't it? up to 9 grand so far, so people are clearly happy to contribute.And some folk are racked off that other folk have happily contributed nine grand so far and sneer at them for doing so.
I don't have a problem with Amaral pursuing the appeal process. That's his right. I don't have a problem with people contributing to his legal fund, either. Assuming that they are compos mentis, what they do with their spare cash is their own business.
What I do find odd is the Supreme Court ruling over the injunction. I wonder how much time they actually spent on analysing the facts on which they based their judgement?
In the book, we do not verify any reference to any facts that are not in that dispatch.
Where the author differs from the Prosecutors who have written the dispatch, is in the logical, police-work-related and investigative interpretation that he does of those facts.
In that aspect, we stand before the exercise of freedom of opinion, which is a domain in which the author is an expert, as he was a criminal investigator for 26 years.
Reasonable sceptics on here (if they're honest), would surely find that finding to be questionable? No?
And some folk are racked off that other folk have happily contributed nine grand so far and sneer at them for doing so.
"everybody's gotta have somebody to look down on someone to be better than anytime at all"
K.Kristofferson.
I don't pretend to understand Portuguese law or how it works so do't spend any time worrying about it
As I said, I don't worry about it. The Court will decide.
The same could be said of the "perfect parent" brigade. ;)
It remains to be seen if the appeal is allowed as the judge was quite clear on the breaches of the law as applicable to a former police officer, which dictated her ruling.
If Goncalo Amaral's defence team are sanguine about that being overruled by another court and the appeal is allowed, contributors to the fund will have to continue to dig long and deep.
I am not disputing that.
I am fascinated by the way lines get drawn, sides form up, a uniform is devised and anything to do with the other side is dodgy by definition. A bit like Man U and Liverpool really where, for a Kop man, the next best thing to a Liverpool victory is a Man U loss. Frightfully tribal.
None of which advances what actually happened to a little missing child who somehow became a "football".
And some folk are racked off that other folk have happily contributed nine grand so far and sneer at them for doing so.
"everybody's gotta have somebody to look down on someone to be better than anytime at all"
K.Kristofferson.
I didn't mention specifics in my post but now you bring it up:
The judge dispensed justice on a point of law as she saw it giving the defendants the right of appeal to a higher court. According to justice the defendants are allowed their day in court if the higher court deems there are grounds for appeal. One defendant has limited resources and folk are raising money to assist him have his day in court. What happens beyond that is yet to be revealed.
I agree with you on this Alice. It is vital that both sides be represented properly, and have their day in court. For reasons which have been rehearsed elsewhere the two parties are unequal in resource. Therefore I am personally happy to put my money where my mouth is and support a fund to pay for proper representation for Amaral.
I agree with you on this Alice. It is vital that both sides be represented properly, and have their day in court. For reasons which have been rehearsed elsewhere the two parties are unequal in resource. Therefore I am personally happy to put my money where my mouth is and support a fund to pay for proper representation for Amaral.
What you seem to be saying JP is that justice is available only to those with the means to afford it.
The McCanns were in the position to have their legal fees underwritten in the civil case they took out against Goncalo Amaral ... had they been poor Portuguese peasants who would have set up a fund to help?
In general, yes. It is the reality but that does not make it fair. In the UK, Legal Aid is (was) available in certain cases, and some household insurance policies will cover some legal expenses to defend ones rights. Many firms have a pro bono scheme to handle a limited number of cases. If these routes are not available then it is a case of pay up or surrender.
In Portugal the legal aid scheme exists but is being reduced in scope. And many lawyers do offer pro bono schemes. But Amaral is in a bind (maybe of his own making but that is not my concern). His main assets have been frozen, and he does not have access to them to cover legal fees. He is without question entitled to his day in court if an appeal is granted, and in the interests of justice he must have access to proper representation.
So In a sense Amaral is in the position of a poor Portuguese peasant, but is receiving some help.
You really should get out of the habit of making global statements tailored to suit your agenda ... I have seen no "racked offedness" of people using their money as they see fit ... how you interpret comment on that, is your affair.
Who has to give permission for an appeal, does anyone know?
8. Appeal
8.1 Grounds for appeal
The general rule is that a party may appeal to the court of second instance (“Tribunal da Relação”) when the value of the lawsuit is higher than EUR5,000 and the decision is unfavourable to the appealing party in an amount higher than EUR2,500.01 (Cf. Article 629 of the CPC). The court of second instance decides both on legal and factual issues.
A party may appeal to the Supreme Court when the value of the lawsuit is higher than EUR30,000 and the decision is unfavourable to the appealing party in an amount higher than EUR15,000.01.
The Supreme Court only rules on legal issues and, in most cases, cannot revoke the second instance judgment concerning the proven facts.
In most cases the parties cannot move to the Supreme Court if the first and the second instance courts have issued identical decisions with similar grounds.
The general rule is that the appeal does not suspend the proceedings unless the appealing party pays a deposit or presents a bank guarantee.
http://www.chambersandpartners.com/guide/practice-guides/location/241/6617/1422-200#questiongroup_299
In Portugal, defendants always have the right to appeal and do not need to ask for permission to do so. The right to appeal is inscribed in the law as a protection. The defendant sends his arguments and the upper court makes its decision accordingly. The defendant can keep appealing up to the Supreme Court.
In Portugal, defendants always have the right to appeal and do not need to ask for permission to do so. The right to appeal is inscribed in the law as a protection. The defendant sends his arguments and the upper court makes its decision accordingly. The defendant can keep appealing up to the Supreme Court.
I don't think that anyone is stating the contrary. But, as you said, there must be arguments, and those must presumbly be considered valid.
"I disagree" isn't a sufficient argument, is it?
I am not disputing that.
I am fascinated by the way lines get drawn, sides form up, a uniform is devised and anything to do with the other side is dodgy by definition. A bit like Man U and Liverpool really where, for a Kop man, the next best thing to a Liverpool victory is a Man U loss. Frightfully tribal.
In Portugal, defendants always have the right to appeal and do not need to ask for permission to do so. The right to appeal is inscribed in the law as a protection. The defendant sends his arguments and the upper court makes its decision accordingly. The defendant can keep appealing up to the Supreme Court.
Goncalo Amaral has been given leave to appeal. It only remains to be seen if he can actually come up with a reason by which to do so.
And I am going to be the last person to deny him. Although at this moment in time I cannot see what logical or legal reason for why he should be able.
Personally, I don't really care. He can no longer go on spouting absolute rubbish about nothing much at all. Which is what it was all about in the first place.
Don't worry, Gonçalo Amaral has plenty of logical and legal reasons to appeal.
As for spouting rubbish, the judgement stated that the book was not libellous and was based on facts but that, according to the judge, it is possible to besmirch someone's good name even when telling the truth.
Don't worry, Gonçalo Amaral has plenty of logical and legal reasons to appeal.
As for spouting rubbish, the judgement stated that the book was not libellous and was based on facts but that, according to the judge, it is possible to besmirch someone's good name even when telling the truth.
So you expect him to be spouting rubbish on Television any time soon? I don't think so. In fact, I very much doubt that Goncalo Amaral will ever have another word to say about the case, least not in his own defence.
The rest will be for ever the meanderings of a very nasty man.
IYO Eleanor.
Don't worry, Gonçalo Amaral has plenty of logical and legal reasons to appeal.
As for spouting rubbish, the judgement stated that the book was not libellous and was based on facts but that, according to the judge, it is possible to besmirch someone's good name even when telling the truth.
Have you not bothered to read here for theast few days.
Amaral was found liable because he used privileged information and failed in his duty as a retired police officer to maintain the innocence of the McCanns.
Oh gosh. You think that I am actually entitled to an opinion that might differ from yours?
Goncalo Amaral was found guilty of abuse of privilege. Spin that one if you can.
IYO Eleanor.
But his book wasn't found to be libellous and that after all is what really matters isn't it ?
If the appeal is allowed, I feel he may be giving the McCann lawyers another window of opportunity, particularly as they have already achieved what many thought the impossible and may well be on a roll.
I'm sure they are well prepared for it anyway.
He must like the Courts holding his money for him, just like one of those investments you can't touch for some years, seems a good idea at the time, then you wish you hadn't because the interest rate is so rubbish you'd have been better just keeping it in a box under the bed.
Nevertheless it was found to have damaged th McCanns and banned from further distribution for cash.
Also Amaral is now constrained to not use privileged knowledge fined from his employment and commanded to maintain absolutely the innocence of the McCanns.
This will limit his free speech somewhat and make his speeches somewhat boring. Just another superannuated cop.
The book was not deemed libellous and the McCanns have been denied the exoneration they so obviously craved.
Looking at it any other way is like applying a sticking plaster to an open,,festering wound.
The McCanns expressed aim was to stop Amaral accusing them.
They have succeeded.
Amaral must not call their innocence into doubt or use privileged information gained in the course of his employment.
The McCanns expressed aim was to stop Amaral accusing them.
They have succeeded.
Amaral must not call their innocence into doubt or use privileged information gained in the course of his employment.
The McCanns expressed aim was to stop Amaral accusing them.
They have succeeded.
Amaral must not call their innocence into doubt or use privileged information gained in the course of his employment.
The McCanns expressed aim was to stop the search being harmed by the book, or at least that's how they justified spending fund money on the litigation.
However frustratingly the judge decided that no harm had been done to the search..Oops !
But his book wasn't found to be libellous and that after all is what really matters isn't it ?
Do you really believe that? You were never any more half daft than I am.
No, apparently his book wasn't actually Libellous, within Portuguese Law, which still remains a mystery to us all.
Not much point in asking you to consider their innocence, I don't suppose. But if I ever wanted to convince anyone then it would be you.
But then I don't. You will come to it by your own common sense.
He presented his and his police forces theory based on the evidence in a book, when it was clear for them all it was going to be a whitewash, so what? I suppose you would shoot all whistleblowers?
He misused privileged information and broke professional standards by accusing the legally innocent of being guilty.
So? Many have done so in the pursuit of truth....are you really one of the amaral [ censored word ] that want him bankrupt whilst the mccanns profess to use the vast majority of their fund directly on search fees when its a fact its a lie? And use it for these proceedings
No. I am quite happy with the judgement of the Portuguese legal system which ha removed from him his ill gotten gains from the book nd other sources and put him in a Portuguese Gag so that he cannot further act unlawfully.
All his woes are of his own making. If he had maintained his professional standards he would currently be quietly retired. Instead he gambled on making illicit money from his early retirement and lost big.
I wish him no harm beyond that he has brought on himself.
He misused privileged information and broke professional standards by accusing the legally innocent of being guilty.
The McCanns expressed aim was to stop Amaral accusing them.
They have succeeded.
Amaral must not call their innocence into doubt or use privileged information gained in the course of his employment.
The McCanns' expressed aim was to destroy him from the beginning. As Kate said in her book, she wanted him to suffer pain and feel fear.
That is one judge's opinion only. The ruling of the Tribunal de Relação ruled that Gonçalo Amaral's rights to freedom of expression, as a Portuguese citizen, prevailed over his obligations as a retired policeman. Furthermore, the judges stated that his 26 years of experience also validated his opinion. The complete opposite of last week's decision.
AFAIK, Gonçalo Amaral has never been punished by the PJ hierarchy for breaking professional standards and if they believed that he had, any measures should have been taken 7 years ago.
BTW, the McCanns have never been declared legally innocent.
And in that they have been successful. Ruined and gagged.
Ruined hardly, his assets were already seized.
Gagged hardly.
Too late for that.
Interesting to see the number of donations to Amaral, compared to the latest mccanns charity PR exercise.
As to the mccanns getting any money from Amaral, when is that exactly ?
But the book has been banned which effectively stops any possible effect it might have on the search.
They haven't been charged and/or been through the court system as regards Madeleine's disappearance, in case you haven't noticed.
The crime hasn't been determined.
Try to keep up.
And in that they have been successful. Ruined and gagged.
Maybe from a financial point of view but not morally.
When the court releases Amaral's sequestered funds after he fails to appeal or loses his appeal.
You may not believe him to be morally questionable but many other people would.
He is a convicted criminal and has been found civilly liable for abusing his position as a law officer to benefit himself financially.
I would say that those two facts do dent his claim to morality.
Did the judge say anything about Amaral abusing his position to benefit himself financially ?
THERE WAS NO EFFECT Oxy it has been legally proven. You can't cherry pick the verdict and promote the parts that suit your agenda. How does that promote justice ?
Unfortunately it is the current decision of the Portuguese Legal system and will remain so unless Amaral appeals. He has another four weeks or so.
We shall see.
If he does not appeal, will you accept it as a final decision?
Of course, Gonçalo Amaral is going to appeal, you can be sure of that. BTW, this decision is not enforceable yet until all appeals have been exhausted (that is if the higher courts uphold that decision).
He was found liable for publishing a book for profit using privileged information nd ignoring his responsibility to maintain the innocence of people.
Are you innocent?
You enjoy the right to be considered innocent until proven guilty,in case you were unaware of it ... just as the McCanns have the right to exactly the same presumption of innocence.
The McCanns are entitled to be presumed innocent in law by anyone involved in the Judicial process. Since when did the UK papers print truth?
Many sensible people disagree with you. The McCanns are entitled to be presumed innocent in law by anyone involved in the Judicial process. Since when did the UK papers print truth?
The UK public will read what is in the papers and on the whole believe it....
'Presumed' is the word.
Well as regards this case, I wasn't in Portugal on the 3 rd May 2007.
Were you ?
At a rate even higher that the "ridiculous" rate I postulated tongue in cheek a few days ago!
I am surprised...but it just proves how stupid some people are
Thanks for posting the link, perhaps you can explain how this page is going to helpAmaral win his appeal?
It won't. Why do you think it would ?I don't, however there seems to have been some excitement in the sceptic community tonight that this page is hugely significant, so much so that screenshots of it have been sent to Amaral's lawyer.
I don't, however there seems to have been some excitement in the sceptic community tonight that this page is hugely significant, so much so that screenshots of it have been sent to Amaral's lawyer.
Thanks for posting the link, perhaps you can explain how this page is going to helpAmaral win his appeal?
I doubt it will be of assistance to Mr Amaral in his appeal, should he find grounds for taking one forward. Conversely, it may be of use to the McCann legal team in their argument showing the damage which continues to their clients' reputation.
The highlighting of this manner of raising funds also introduces into the equation the question of a charity endeavour and one of raising funding for the personal benefit of an individual, and may be of assistance to the Portuguese Court which has sequestered Mr Amaral's earnings.
It would be a slightly topsy-turvey approach to set about raising the money for an appeal first, and discover you have no grounds for an appeal second.
But, who knows? ....
It would be a slightly topsy-turvey approach to set about raising the money for an appeal first, and discover you have no grounds for an appeal second.
But, who knows? ....
It would be a slightly topsy-turvey approach to set about raising the money for an appeal first, and discover you have no grounds for an appeal second.
But, who knows? ....
I find it strange that anyone who has doubts about the parent's version of events is suspected of being a member of a 'group' spread across the internet spouting lies and feeling hate.
Similarly, pointing out that the Mccann victory over Amaral was not quite the unqualified success suggested by the parents and the media results in accusations of belonging to a group who 'idolise' Amaral and think everything he does is wonderful.
Most people's positions are not so black and white as some seem to think they are. The PJ made mistakes which they have acknowledged. As co-ordinator Amaral has to take the blame for that. The parents made a mistake also, for which they have to take the blame.
The right to appeal is there and people who think Amaral has been badly treated by the court wish to help him financially with that appeal. That's their right and it doesn't make them stupid, trolls, [ censored word ], or anything else.
I find it strange that anyone who has doubts about the parent's version of events is suspected of being a member of a 'group' spread across the internet spouting lies and feeling hate.
Similarly, pointing out that the Mccann victory over Amaral was not quite the unqualified success suggested by the parents and the media results in accusations of belonging to a group who 'idolise' Amaral and think everything he does is wonderful.
Most people's positions are not so black and white as some seem to think they are. The PJ made mistakes which they have acknowledged. As co-ordinator Amaral has to take the blame for that. The parents made a mistake also, for which they have to take the blame.
The right to appeal is there and people who think Amaral has been badly treated by the court wish to help him financially with that appeal. That's their right and it doesn't make them stupid, trolls, [ censored word ], or anything else.
He can submit an appeal based on legal points and facts.
Questions:
Can he submit new facts or just dispute the validity of those already considered?
Can the McCanns only respond to the points raised in the appeal? Or can they raise new elements if they have any?
Thanks JP, that's one bit of the puzzle.
Do you have a link to the latest CPC?
I don't think the one I've been looking at recently can be it as none of the article numbers correspond.
http://www.dgpj.mj.pt/sections/leis-da-justica/livro-iii-leis-civis-e/consolidacao-processo/codigo-processo-civil/downloadFile/file/CODIGO_PROCESSO_CIVIL_VF.pdf?nocache=1286970369.12
The following may clarify questions relating to time limits for appeal, and the process:
The general rule is that the appealing party has 30 days to appeal to the higher court in the event that the appeal is to the court of second instance (Cf. Article 638 of the CPC). If the appeal includes the impeachment of the proven facts through a review of the recorded witnesses or party statements, then the appealing party has 40 days to appeal.
However, in some specific cases (e.g. freezing orders) the appealing party has only 15 days to appeal.
The defendant in the appeal always has the same term to present an answer.
The first instance court will then decide whether the appeal should be accepted. If it is accepted, the case is sent to the higher court.
On the basis of historic evidence, it is estimated that the second instance courts take on average between six months and one year to decide an appeal, and that the Supreme Court will take on average three to six months to issue a final decision
__________
This means that there is a right to appeal, within a set timescale.
The defendant in the appeal has a similar limited time to respond.
The first instance court will then decide on whether the appeal has merit and if it decides it has, the case is sent to the second instance court. So although there is a right to appeal, that does not guarantee that the appeal will be heard in a higher court.
The following may clarify questions relating to time limits for appeal, and the process:
The general rule is that the appealing party has 30 days to appeal to the higher court in the event that the appeal is to the court of second instance (Cf. Article 638 of the CPC). If the appeal includes the impeachment of the proven facts through a review of the recorded witnesses or party statements, then the appealing party has 40 days to appeal.
However, in some specific cases (e.g. freezing orders) the appealing party has only 15 days to appeal.
The defendant in the appeal always has the same term to present an answer.
The first instance court will then decide whether the appeal should be accepted. If it is accepted, the case is sent to the higher court.
On the basis of historic evidence, it is estimated that the second instance courts take on average between six months and one year to decide an appeal, and that the Supreme Court will take on average three to six months to issue a final decision
__________
This means that there is a right to appeal, within a set timescale.
The defendant in the appeal has a similar limited time to respond.
The first instance court will then decide on whether the appeal has merit and if it decides it has, the case is sent to the second instance court. So although there is a right to appeal, that does not guarantee that the appeal will be heard in a higher court.
What is puzzling you Carana? I will have a go at answering.
Look, you simply do not understand. Gonçalo Amaral will submit his appeal, it will be then heard (or read) by the Tribunal de Relação, who will study the case and make a ruling. Ponto final. GA does not have to wait for some authorisation to make an appeal. After the ruling by the TdR any of the parties can appeal that decision and it will go on and on...
I don't do face book or tw..ter and wouldn't know where to look on the net as I am not a member of the "sceptic clan" which you seem to think exists and will end civilisation as you think it should be. I only came in here because "The McCann Files" was down for a couple of days and it gives the opportunity for a "bundle".So,you're a lone wolf but that doesn't mean that there isn't a community of online" sceptics" (there clearly is) - I have never claimed however that they have the power to end civilisation. I just think that they're a strange bunch that's all (witness the latest attempts to help Amaral with the Fiona Webster charity page - completely bonkers!)
There are folk on both sides of any argument like this one, who really believe they will make a difference. I put it down to the desire to want to "belong".
Don't knock them; after all your presence is unlikely to be for reasons of altruism, this forum not being big enough to significantly change opinion in the round.
So Amaral is appealing an impeachment of proven facts, through a review of the recorded witness's or party statements?
The process is that the appealing party will submit his appeal within the given timescale to the court of first instance, who will rule on whether the appeal has merit. The defendant party has a right to respond to the basis for appeal.If there was an automatic appeal process (without any due consideration as Montclair is suggesting) then presumably EVERYBODY would appeal ANY decision against them...?
If it is decide the appeal has merit, the court will refer the case to the court of second instance, (Tribunal de Relação) for the appeal to be heard with both parties represented.
The reason for this overview by the lower court is to prevent the higher courts being clogged up by disgruntled losing parties bringing hopeless appeals.
So there is a right to attempt an appeal, but no guarantee that the appeal will be heard.
If there was an automatic appeal process (without any due consideration as Montclair is suggesting) then presumably EVERYBODY would appeal ANY decision against them...?
I don't think we have any idea of the basis of any appeal. The appeal may be based on legal issues of proven facts (or both).
Montclair said he had 40 days to appeal. Going by the time line and reasons, it seems that is his basis?
"The general rule is that the appealing party has 30 days to appeal to the higher court in the event that the appeal is to the court of second instance (Cf. Article 638 of the CPC). If the appeal includes the impeachment of the proven facts through a review of the recorded witnesses or party statements, then the appealing party has 40 days to appeal".
So,you're a lone wolf but that doesn't mean that there isn't a community of online" sceptics" (there clearly is) - I have never claimed however that they have the power to end civilisation. I just think that they're a strange bunch that's all (witness the latest attempts to help Amaral with the Fiona Webster charity page - completely bonkers!)
So,you're a lone wolf but that doesn't mean that there isn't a community of online" sceptics" (there clearly is) - I have never claimed however that they have the power to end civilisation. I just think that they're a strange bunch that's all (witness the latest attempts to help Amaral with the Fiona Webster charity page - completely bonkers!)
Taking into consideration the amounts involved, € 500.000,00 plus interest, Gonçalo Amaral has the automatic right to appeal, no authority can deny him that. By fining him that amount the judge forced Gonçalo Amaral to appeal, he has no other choice.
Do you have a cite for that Alfie ?A cite for what? I have already named the bonkers FB page on which this nonsense appears, surprised you're not a member tbh!
I find both sides of the "extreme coin" weird but no weirder than a lot of other cults (for the want of a better term). The universal tribal principle that one person will swear black is white because a member of the other tribe said black is black is somewhat bizarre but people will do the daftest things. One can see examples of it on here most days; no names no packdrill.Sorry, but it's a lot stranger IMO because it is completely bereft of logic. Criticising LP for not pursuing prosecutions is a legitimate opinion, even if it's one you don't agree with. Believing that Fiona Webster's charity page will help Amaral win an appeal is just straight-foward nuts.
The issue with Fiona Webster's charity page is no stranger than the recent episode on here about the Leicestershire police must be bent/incompetent/fill in as appropriate, because "The Dossier" did not result in prosecutions. Maybe the cops and CPS thought the dossier was vexatious crap only fit to light up a fire?
Sorry, but it's a lot stranger IMO because it is completely bereft of logic. Criticising LP for not pursuing prosecutions is a legitimate opinion, even if it's one you don't agree with. Believing that Fiona Webster's charity page will help Amaral win an appeal is just straight-foward nuts.
A cite for what? I have already named the bonkers FB page on which this nonsense appears, surprised you're not a member tbh!
The universal tribal principle that one person will swear black is white because a member of the other tribe said black is black is somewhat bizarre but people will do the daftest things. One can see examples of it on here most days; no names no packdrill.Where am I swearing that black is white? I have made an observation about a group of "sceptics" that I'm sure even you must agree with - what is bizarre about that and what point do you think has been made?
You would appear to be making my point for me. Much obliged.
You are sounding rather fractious Alfie. Things not going well ?No, they're going awfully badly, thanks for asking. Amaral has made toast of the McCanns and they owe him thousands, plus he has the whole of Great Britain voting him Top Geezer of the Year Award, and they're now literally stuffing his pockets with £50 notes. it's a sad state of affairs and no mistake, that's why I appear so terribly fractious.
It is not a fine, it is a award of damages.
And yes, of course. The barrier level for eventual appeal to the supreme court if a monetary amount of damages exceeds 15k euros. He has the right to appeal, but the process involves demonstrating the grounds on which he intends to appeal. If he cannot demonstrate legal or factual grounds then the appeal process will end there.
So he has until the 23rd May, or the 2nd June to lodge an appeal.
My prediction is that he will try to spin this out for as long as possible to put off the evil day. I suspect his lawyer's secretary should be very careful 8(0(*
The appeal process will end at the Supreme court. You just don't understand or you take your desires for reality. I'm not saying anymore about this.
Where am I swearing that black is white? I have made an observation about a group of "sceptics" that I'm sure even you must agree with - what is bizarre about that and what point do you think has been made?
No, they're going awfully badly, thanks for asking. Amaral has made toast of the McCanns and they owe him thousands, plus he has the whole of Great Britain voting him Top Geezer of the Year Award, and they're now literally stuffing his pockets with £50 notes. it's a sad state of affairs and no mistake, that's why I appear so terribly fractious.
Try to think of principle dear boy rather than nit picking detail. That way when someone says "how many beans make five" you will be able to answer properly rather than say "phworrr chief I can do it in fountain pens but in beans that's real tricky" 8(0(*You don't do straight-forward answers to straight-forward questions do you? Never mind, I knew it would be a difficult one to answer without resorting to riddle-me-ree vagaries as per.
You don't do straight-forward answers to straight-forward questions do you? Never mind, I knew it would be a difficult one to answer without resorting to riddle-me-ree vagaries as per.
I'm sure if anyone was told to pay half a million quid they'd appeal, so why some people object to this man's right to appeal is worryingWho is objecting?
Who is objecting?
its a general impression I got from some peoples post that he shouldnt be allowed to appeal
shows how wrong your general impressions are...
I was talking to Alfred not you, are you a reincarnated jack russell who jumps up and bites every two seconds? at anyone and everything? I said it was my impression from reading. Unless you can prove me wring best to bark have a biscuit and get lost.
well your impressions wring isn't it
its a general impression I got from some peoples post that he shouldnt be allowed to appealThat's not my impression, my impression is that some people are questioning what his grounds for appeal will be and whether or not they will be accepted, not that he shouldn't be allowed to appeal at all.
Brits raise thousands for Maddie cop’s libel appeal
(http://i.imgur.com/Cc5v4Ht.jpg?1)
Article dated 6 May 2015
(http://portugalresident.com/sites/default/files/styles/node-detail/public/field/image/080515_LU_GONÇALO_AMARAL.jpg?itok=HQAOm9nu)
After what many consider the bombshell of a judicial decision - setting record damages for a private Portuguese citizen - British supporters of former PJ inspector Gonçalo Amaral are rallying en-masse to a “gofundme” online appeal - started intriguingly by a young British woman who was only 14 when Madeleine McCann went missing.
In less than a week, 22-year-old Leanne Baulch’s appeal has raised over £9,200. British media is slating it - suggesting it is powered by “sick online trolls”, but as the Resident looks behind this fast-developing story it is becoming clear that many of these people have no ‘axe to grind’. They are simply appalled at what they see as a case of injustice.
Meantime, police in UK have decided not to go ahead with any prosecutions over the so-called “hate dossier” cataloguing “troll abuse” of the McCanns.
Read the full report in this week’s Algarve Resident newspaper, available in newsagents on Thursday.
www.portugalresident.com/brits-raise-thousands-for-maddie-cop’s-libel-appeal
Why do you feel the need to insult anonymous doners by calling them 'misguide fools' just because have different opinions to you?
Because I think they are misguided fools...that's my opinion. You and they support amaral's right to label the Mccanns as criminals...that's far more insulting
Brits raise thousands for Maddie cop’s libel appeal
(http://i.imgur.com/Cc5v4Ht.jpg?1)
Article dated 6 May 2015
(http://portugalresident.com/sites/default/files/styles/node-detail/public/field/image/080515_LU_GONÇALO_AMARAL.jpg?itok=HQAOm9nu)
After what many consider the bombshell of a judicial decision - setting record damages for a private Portuguese citizen - British supporters of former PJ inspector Gonçalo Amaral are rallying en-masse to a “gofundme” online appeal - started intriguingly by a young British woman who was only 14 when Madeleine McCann went missing.
In less than a week, 22-year-old Leanne Baulch’s appeal has raised over £9,200. British media is slating it - suggesting it is powered by “sick online trolls”, but as the Resident looks behind this fast-developing story it is becoming clear that many of these people have no ‘axe to grind’. They are simply appalled at what they see as a case of injustice.
Meantime, police in UK have decided not to go ahead with any prosecutions over the so-called “hate dossier” cataloguing “troll abuse” of the McCanns.
Read the full report in this week’s Algarve Resident newspaper, available in newsagents on Thursday.
www.portugalresident.com/brits-raise-thousands-for-maddie-cop’s-libel-appeal
My goodness![/b]
If his appeal costs, fund continues to have donations at the rate of contributions, as in the past week, he will be able to pay the damages awarded to the McCanns (Maddie fund) from it in no time.
And they say "Beggars cant be choosers"
How much, I wonder does he already have in his fund from his legal costs fund. Or are both funds, one?
My goodness!
If his appeal costs, fund continues to have donations at the rate of contributions, as in the past week, he will be able to pay the damages awarded to the McCanns (Maddie fund) from it in no time.
And they say "Beggars cant be choosers"
How much, I wonder does he already have in his fund from his legal costs fund. Or are both funds, one?
Because I think they are misguided fools...that's my opinion. You and they support amaral's right to label the Mccanns as criminals...that's far more insulting
It is also possible that they believe that Amaral has a legal and moral right to appeal the courts decision, and want to make sure that he has the resources to be properly represented in that appeal.So, if he had no money, he wouldn't be able to appeal?
You do know that the appeal fund has not been set up to pay the damages awarded to the McCann don't you Anna ?
So, if he had no money, he wouldn't be able to appeal?
I don't actually- I don't accept he has any right to say that and certainly not in the way he did, though he is quite entitled to think what he likes.
[/b]
Does anyone care - other than yourself, obviously ?
No idea what he has set up, Faith, but if the rate of donations continues at its present rate, he would have a lot of excess money, so where would it go?
No jassi, I don't care one iota, what he does with his money. I just wondered if it could go towards his appeal fund, that so many kind people are donating towards.
Firstly he has not set this up Anna, a supporter did and I understand that if there is any money left after paying Amaral's legal fees it will go to a Portuguese children's charity.
He would find it very difficult. His assets have been frozen, and a decent lawyer to put together an appeal will be expensive. There will also be court fees.
Have we been told how the MCanns are going to justify the use of the fund to pay the 58% of the court fees the judge deemed them liable for when it has now been legally decided that the book did not harm the search ?
Good question.
Is it just me, or are others having a problem posting on this thread? Gremlins in the works?
I had problems logging on today.
Have we been told how the MCanns are going to justify the use of the fund to pay the 58% of the court fees the judge deemed them liable for when it has now been legally decided that the book did not harm the search ?I haven't been told, perhaps you should drop them a line and ask them to justify it to you, then you could let us know?
Ah! That's because I locked you out, Stephen @)(++(*......Only joking of course.
This thread should be Topic: Gonçalo Amaral confirms he will appeal the damages decision to highest Court.
We seem to have a sub topic, which is working for me to post in but I cannot answer posts on the properly headed topic for some reason . So the people not replied to. please forgive me for not answering. I will as soon as this is sorted.
ETA
Sorted I think.
I haven't been told, perhaps you should drop them a line and ask them to justify it to you, then you could let us know?
Firstly he has not set this up Anna, a supporter did and I understand that if there is any money left after paying Amaral's legal fees it will go to a Portuguese children's charity.
It is also possible that they believe that Amaral has a legal and moral right to appeal the courts decision, and want to make sure that he has the resources to be properly represented in that appeal.
Anna, are you quite happy fr people to donate the mccanns fund:
past; present; or future.
He is absolutely entitled to have an opinion and think what he likes ... unfortunately he didn't stick at that ... he wrote a book to advertise that personal opinion.
In doing so he broke Portuguese Law which considering his role as an enforcer of the law is bizarre. He also disregarded the right of the McCanns to the presumption of innocence and caused them years of psychological harm and distress
Gonçalo Amaral did not break any law. The judge only expressed her opinion that, as a retired policemen, he abused his situation and that his right to freedom of expression and opinion were limited due to the fact that he had been a public servant. That is her opinion only. He has never been sanctioned by the PJ hierarchy for any kind of abuse of his "dever de reserva". I would like to remind you that the Tribunal de Relação came to the exact opposite conclusion in its acórdão in October 2010.
The fact is that her opinion is rather important as she is judging his case and from what we have heard from Oxford she is absolutely correct
Oxford's opinion.
Let's see what happens next.
The fact is that her opinion is rather important as she is judging his case and from what we have heard from Oxford she is absolutely correct
No ...the Judges opinion einstein
The fact is that her opinion is rather important as she is judging his case and from what we have heard from Oxford she is absolutely correct
Gonçalo Amaral did not break any law. The judge only expressed her opinion that, as a retired policemen, he abused his situation and that his right to freedom of expression and opinion were limited due to the fact that he had been a public servant. That is her opinion only. He has never been sanctioned by the PJ hierarchy for any kind of abuse of his "dever de reserva". I would like to remind you that the Tribunal de Relação came to the exact opposite conclusion in its acórdão in October 2010.
At the end of the day it is only an opinion which a higher court might find wanting.
Now what happens if the appeal court overturns the decision ?
Mmm.
As to ruining a life, prey tell what happened to Madeleine dave ?
The current legal position in Portugal is that Amaral has a right to appeal, and has a limited timeframe in which to do so.
He will have to stipulate the grounds for the appeal and the legal and or factual matters that he is challenging. The Court will then decide whether the grounds for that appeal have merit.
If it decides they do, then the case is sent to the court of second instance (Tribunal da Relação). If it decides the appeal is without merit then the matter ends there and the judgement of the court is enforced.
The matter may proceed to the Supreme Court, provided that the courts of first and second instance do not provide the same judgement.
The reason for this process is to avoid the higher courts becoming clogged with appeal cases.
It is also to prevent a respondant being able to spin out an unfavourable judgement indefinitely, thereby denying justice to a rightful claimant.
amaral has not been granted an appeal yet...try and keep up
We shall see on that.
an if the verdict is overturned, just more legal bills for the mccanns.
The Prosecutors very clearly stated that the McCanns are not guilty of anything culpable in respect of Madeleine's disappearance.
Amaral, in the last chapter of his book, accuses the McCanns of responsibility for Madeleine's death, covering up the 'fact' of her death and simulating 'abduction'
That is why the admirable judge Maria Emilia de Melo e Castro passed down the judgment she did.
Untrue. What the prosecutors in fact stated was that there was no evidence of guilt. A very big difference.
They also stated that due to the actions of their tapas pals the McCann lost the opportunity to establish their innocence.
Can you explain exactly how the three categories of "Not Guilty" "Guilty" and "Innocent" are defined.
Are they defined differently from different standpoints- legal, moral, social.
What exactly do the words mean?
And for Amaral as legal costs are generally borne by each side.
We should know in a few weeks if he has decided to appeal.
Thank you to the maddiecasefiles for the translation of this article.
Gonçalo Amaral
English supporter creates solidarity fund
Brits support the ex-inspector
In 3 days, though the social network, €7,000 have already been raised for his defense
Sentenced by the civil court to pay € 500,000 to Madeleine McCann's parents, for damages caused by the publication of the book Maddie: A Verdade da Mentira, the ex-inspector Gonçalo Amaral is going to appeal the decision to a higher court. However, due to the enormous court costs in Portugal, and the fact that Gonçalo Amaral does not have the financial structure to prolong the legal battles, sites have been created on the social network, supporting him morally and that, in three days, have been able to raise more than € 7,000.
The idea came from a young woman, 22 years old, from Birmingham, UK, when she found out that Amaral had to pay the McCann couple a half a million Euros. As well as receiving donations, the page is also open to comments of support to the ex-inspector. It is certain that the English do not want Gonçalo Amaral to give up defending himself in the courts. "Don't give up the search for justice and truth. You are an honourable man who was seriously hurt. I don't know what is happening in this case, but someone is lying," writes a supporter Jill Parkin, after having made a donation. Other than this, despite the fact that there are many English who support Amaral, others put him down, as was the case with the newspaper The Sun, who, with regard to this help, suggests that Gonçalo is being financed "by British trolls". Those who did not like this were the followers of the site who declared:" The Sun is a shame, they only give the version of Maddie's parents." Even adding: "Keep on fighting GA, Madeleine deserves that justice be done".
Caption of photo: Keep on fighting The British supporters of Gonçalo Amaral do not want the ex-inspector to give up. "Madeleine deserves that justice be done"
The McCanns must be furious that well meaning folks are very prepared to fork out their hard earned cash to support a man who considers them guilty.
The McCanns must be furious that well meaning folks are very prepared to fork out their hard earned cash to support a man who considers them guilty.The McCanns must be furious that well meaning folks are very prepared to fork out their hard earned cash to support a man who considers them guilty, despite the complete absence of any evidence of their guilt. Well yes, I'd be furious too, bemused, saddened, disgusted, resigned to the fact that there's really nowt so queer as folk.
The McCanns must be furious that well meaning folks are very prepared to fork out their hard earned cash to support a man who considers them guilty, despite the complete absence of any evidence of their guilt. Well yes, I'd be furious too, bemused, saddened, disgusted, resigned to the fact that there's really nowt so queer as folk.
Back on topic. Amaral is right to appeal the decision, the sum awarded was ridiculous. I have no doubt the appeal court will agree.You had no doubt that the McCanns would fail in their court action against Amaral, I expect I will recieve another warning for reminding you how little your predictions are worth!
Back on topic. Amaral is right to appeal the decision, the sum awarded was ridiculous. I have no doubt the appeal court will agree.
You had no doubt that the McCanns would fail in their court action against Amaral, I expect I will recieve another warning for reminding you how little your predictions are worth!
You had no doubt that the McCanns would fail in their court action against Amaral, I expect I will recieve another warning for reminding you how little your predictions are worth!
The reasoning behind why that amount was decided is laid out in very specific detail in the Judgement. Did you read the reasoning? What part of the reasoning do you disagree with? What are the grounds of your disagreement?
Tell me alfred why the mccanns should be paid any money at all.
This whole situation is a result of what they failed to do in Portugal.
i.e.Look after their children as good parents would.
The judge erred imo.
The McCanns were not being judged on their childcare. Amaral was being judged on his actions. The McCanns have not been found to have committed any crime or tort. Amaral has been found to have done both.
This whole case rests on what the mccanns did not do.
Meanwhile has Amaral's thesis of accidental death been disproved ?
Back on topic. Amaral is right to appeal the decision, the sum awarded was ridiculous. I have no doubt the appeal court will agree.
Police guesswork does not make law.
The case rests on whether or not Amaral was a total part in misusing privileged information and going against his oath as a law officer.
This whole case rests on what the mccanns did not do.
Meanwhile has Amaral's thesis of accidental death been disproved ?
Right or wrongly, the judge has made her decision. It is the option of a higher court to over rule it if they see fit.
That was the judges opinion.CAN YOU
On appeal as we have seen in Portugal, a different interpretation could apply.
Can you tell me of any comparable case in history where parents who have neglected their children have received financial reward ?
Irrelevant Stephen, as you well know. Amaral cannot base his case on a supposition that the McCanns may or may not have committed a crime.
A key point remains.
Until the cause of Madeleine's disappearance is determined, as others have commented, how could this case proceed ?
What would happen if it was eventually found that Madeleine did die in the apartment ?
Even if she died there, Amaral still broke his oath and misused information that was privileged. Damage to the McCanns still occurred.
The damage was self inflicted.
It was not just Amaral's belief that accidental death occurred.
The damage was inflicted purely by Amaral's behaviour. It does not matter who believed what.
Agreed. But assuming that it will is unjustified. It could go either way. Maybe the McCanns will appeal on the points that their claim was rebutted?
That is your subjective opinion.Damages were awarded in court were they not? so what was the damage caused by, in your opinion?
Amaral's theory was already known and held by others, and continues to be so.
Damages were awarded in court were they not? so what was the damage caused by, in your opinion?
That is your subjective opinion.
Amaral's theory was already known and held by others, and continues to be so.
On that judges subjective interpretation of the law.
The fact remains, if the mccanns had not left their childrenn unattended, none of this would have happened.
It is not my subjective opinion, but the judgement of the court.
Even if Amaral's theory was true, it would not affect his unlawful behaviour towards the McCanns by breaking confidence and failing in his oath of office - the actions for which damages were awarded.
Seems that the supporters are happy that damages were awarded because GA had insider knowledge of the case in writing his book.
The key thing remains.
The book was released after he left office.
On that judges subjective interpretation of the law.Damage to the McCanns was caused by the judge's interpretation of the law?! @)(++(*
The fact remains, if the mccanns had not left their childrenn unattended, none of this would have happened.
Damage to the McCanns was caused by the judge's interpretation of the law?! @)(++(*
The judge found that the McCanns had been damaged to the extent of half a million Euros.
For the time being I will accept the Judges verdict over some non entity on a tiny forum.
Who is likely to know Portuguese civil law the best?
My money is on the Judge.
Just one judge.
One judges view.
But who is likely to know Portuguese law better, you or a Portuguese judge?
Let's see what another judge(s) decide.
The McCanns have not been found guilty of neglect in any country. Their previous history does not alter their right to sue or receive damages. Even if they had been found guilty, they could still have the right to sue.
It is called democracy and equality under the law. Human rights you know.
Don't be ridiculous Oxford, neglect was the least of their worries. Had the PJ decided it was wilful or intentional instead of sheer stupidity they would have been prosecuted. Do you think Social Services intervene for fun?
It is not my subjective opinion, but the judgement of the court.
Even if Amaral's theory was true, it would not affect his unlawful behaviour towards the McCanns by breaking confidence and failing in his oath of office - the actions for which damages were awarded.
If it was found that they were involved all civil awards would be reversed.
In your opinion. Cite?
Even prisoners are allowed to sue for damages.
Hardly.If the McCanns damaged themselves then why were damages awarded to them and against Amaral?
The mccanns damaged themselves and nothing you or your fellow mccann backers will ever change that truth.
The case starts and rests with them, as it always has.
If the McCanns damaged themselves then why were damages awarded to them and against Amaral?
I think the judge did try to dispense justice according to the Law prevailing in Portugal. In the end she took the least controversial route by awarding the McCanns damages in full (€250k to each parent) but throwing out the children's claim. She had no choice but to ban the book and DVD.
My own view is that there is some room for an appeal court to reduce the award but little else.
What Amaral does next will be interesting for so many reasons.
I think the judge did try to dispense justice according to the Law prevailing in Portugal. In the end she took the least controversial route by awarding the McCanns damages in full (€250k to each parent) but throwing out the children's claim. She had no choice but to ban the book and DVD.
My own view is that there is some room for an appeal court to reduce the award but little else.
What Amaral does next will be interesting for so many reasons.
It is not my subjective opinion, but the judgement of the court.
Even if Amaral's theory was true, it would not affect his unlawful behaviour towards the McCanns by breaking confidence and failing in his oath of office - the actions for which damages were awarded.
Where is his behaviour unlawful? Only in the judge's opinion. Tell me, if his behaviour was unlawful and he failed his position as a PJ officer, how come he was never bothered by the PJ hierarchy?LOL at "only the judge's opinion". Do you not respect the judicial process then? If the McCanns had been found guilty of an offence it would only have been the judge's opinion right?
I agree with the statement in bold. Do you believe that the judgment awarding the McCanns unprecedented damages and the banning of the book and DVD was a failure for them, as claimed by Angelo on this thread?
It was by no means a failure Alfred but in some ways it must be disappointing too to a certain extent given the judges comments.Anyndisappointment you perceive to be felt by the McCanns is but a fraction of that felt by the loser of this court battle, that's for sure.
Translated judgement (http://www.miscarriageofjustice.co/index.php?topic=6307.msg239337#msg239337)
I would suggest that as well as appealing this judgement, Mr A should apply even greater effort to improving his theory. Winning the case will in itself not acheive the right of the child to complete truth and justice, which is what Mr A has since the beginning fought for. It is essential IMO to proceed on the basis that, if the current theory has not fully solved the case (to conviction), then it is likely that the current theory has an elementary conceptual flaw, so elementary that it is easy to not see it. I suggest he reappraises his theory by asking: "is there one very basic assumption made which is in contradiction to statistics of similar cases". JIMO
Have I read that right? Are you saying that Inspector Amaral didn't quite get it right on the first occasion, but he might do so if he has another crack at it?Possibly, yes.
But after nearly eight years he should really have done so by now.
Possibly, yes.
But only possibly?The PI commercial outfits (Control Risks, Metodo3, Alpha, etc), who were paid in total possibly over a £million by rich backers, have failed to crack the case after 8 years. Also SY having spent several £million have not cracked it. Mr A gets no money from rich backers. However I am suggesting that he tries to succeed where the generously-paid commercial businesses and their rich backers have failed. IMO his theory is flawed in one respect at its core, and also has many finer details wrong, however if rigidity is dismissed and the theory improved it might succeed where the heavily-paid PI businesses have failed.
How many cracks do you think he should get at it? How many more times do you think he should be allowed to try to decimate The McCanns?
And now I am going to apologise to you because you have never been really unpleasant, and you do not deserve that I should be so unpleasant to you.
It's just been a bad day.
Clearly they did fail. The claim was halved, the claim on behalf of the twins and Madeleine kicked out with the judge ruling that the book did not damage the search. My prediction was spot on!
I will now predict the appeal court will reduce the award or even quash it entirely.
I would suggest that as well as appealing this judgement, Mr A should apply even greater effort to improving his theory. Winning the case will in itself not acheive the right of the child to complete truth and justice, which is what Mr A has since the beginning fought for. It is essential IMO to proceed on the basis that, if the current theory has not fully solved the case (to conviction), then it is likely that the current theory has an elementary conceptual flaw, so elementary that it is easy to not see it. I suggest he reappraises his theory by asking: "is there one very basic assumption made which is in contradiction to statistics of similar cases". JIMO
Do none of you remember the comments only a couple of months ago by amaral suggesting he had been successful in the trial. The verdict is a massive victory for the McCanns...amaral must be devastated. Who knows what will happen next...amaral may be refused an appeal...we don't know
Do none of you remember the comments only a couple of months ago by amaral suggesting he had been successful in the trial. The verdict is a massive victory for the McCanns...amaral must be devastated. Who knows what will happen next...amaral may be refused an appeal...we don't knowBelieve it or not they are still saying that the result was a terrible failure for the McCanns and Amaral will be victorious on appeal...
The PI commercial outfits (Control Risks, Metodo3, Alpha, etc), who were paid in total possibly over a £million by rich backers, have failed to crack the case after 8 years. Also SY having spent several £million have not cracked it. Mr A gets no money from rich backers. However I am suggesting that he tries to succeed where the generously-paid commercial businesses and their rich backers have failed. IMO his theory is flawed in one respect at its core, and also has many finer details wrong, however if rigidity is dismissed and the theory improved it might succeed where the heavily-paid PI businesses have failed.Yes the one flaw at the core of Amaral's theory is that the McCanns were not involved in hiding their child's body. In all other respects it's spot on! 8((()*/
Believe it or not they are still saying that the result was a terrible failure for the McCanns and Amaral will be victorious on appeal...
With the best will in the world, with the plaintiffs having about 700k of their claim deffed out and one defendant being stuffed for Euros 500k, I don't see how either of those parties can spin it as a major victory, I would have thought it more like a score draw going into extra time. The winners were the publishers and TV company as they were let off.
With the best will in the world, with the plaintiffs having about 700k of their claim deffed out and one defendant being stuffed for Euros 500k, I don't see how either of those parties can spin it as a major victory, I would have thought it more like a score draw going into extra time. The winners were the publishers and TV company as they were let off.
so you think both sides came out fairly even.......you are extremely deluded...
amaral to pay 500,000......the mccanns to receive 500,00 and you think that's fairly even
and the mccanns have received precisely nothing in their bank account.
Nice.
and the mccanns have received precisely nothing in their bank account.
Nice.
so you think both sides came out fairly even.......you are extremely deluded...
amaral to pay 500,000......the mccanns to receive 500,00 and you think that's fairly even
Then you think the Judge was even handed in her Judgement?I don't think I said that at all. I believe furthermore that you realise I didn't.
Perhaps that knocks another brick out of the wall for Mr Amaral's basis to appeal it?
Sigh ... the award will never go near their bank account ... @)(++(* ... it will go directly into Madeleine's Fund.
I don't think I said that at all. I believe furthermore that you realise I didn't.
Pegasus. The Winged Horse.
It was never the place of The McCanns to prove their innocence. Or for any of whoever might have been employed by whoever to so so either. Although I would say that they were looking for their daughter rather than trying to prove their innocence.
You say that Goncalo Amaral failed at the core, and in certain other respects. So if he has failed in so many ways what gave him the right to inflict even more pain on them? When even you have doubts about his ideas.
I have now gotten beyond him and his theories. And anyone else on this Forum. I do the best that I can for both sides.
But just for tonight I am a bit distressed about the blatant unkindness.
The ultimate conclusion of The Trial, for whatever purpose that might serve, is of no consequence to me. And if I am ever proved to be wrong about my trust in The McCanns then I will have lost nothing. I will never have lost me or my inherent kindness.[/glow]
-snip-
That is one way of looking at it I suppose.
I incline to the view that a smart person will look at the objectives of the writ and what the end result was vis a vis those objectives.
a smart person has
Sigh ... the award will never go near their bank account ... @)(++(* ... it will go directly into Madeleine's Fund.
they have received a favourable judgement and amaral has been humiliated..nicer
Into the irrelevant fund, which they have access to at any time ? %£&)**# %£&)**# %£&)**#
Actually, of course they could never receive any money at all. 8)--))
Always a bit of a mystery to me why everyone's focus isn't on the investigation into Madeleine McCann's disappearance as "justice" for her is the banner under which many choose to attack the fund set up for her benefit.
I think the significance on public opinion of the recent judgement has been missed (or maybe not) concerning the award granted by a Portuguese Judge which appears to me to have been delivered solely on points of Portuguese Law, other aspects of the claim eg the effect on the children having been dismissed.
Therefore I wonder what basis there will be for an appeal as I think the Judge has elucidated the reasoning behind her judgement as points of law which have been flouted ... I think that is probably bomb proof with only perhaps the amount of the award being open to challenge ... even that I think may not be accepted as it was based on the amount made from Mr Amaral's book.
Conversely if the Judgement does go to appeal ... it means Mr Amaral's funds being tied up for some time ... and the result of the appeal may be an increase in the amount awarded.
Always a bit of a mystery to me why everyone's focus isn't on the investigation into Madeleine McCann's disappearance as "justice" for her is the banner under which many choose to attack the fund set up for her benefit.
I think the significance on public opinion of the recent judgement has been missed (or maybe not) concerning the award granted by a Portuguese Judge which appears to me to have been delivered solely on points of Portuguese Law, other aspects of the claim eg the effect on the children having been dismissed.
Therefore I wonder what basis there will be for an appeal as I think the Judge has elucidated the reasoning behind her judgement as points of law which have been flouted ... I think that is probably bomb proof with only perhaps the amount of the award being open to challenge ... even that I think may not be accepted as it was based on the amount made from Mr Amaral's book.
Conversely if the Judgement does go to appeal ... it means Mr Amaral's funds being tied up for some time ... and the result of the appeal may be an increase in the amount awarded.
In your dreams.
Why bother wondering? Why not just leave it the court to sort out, as indeed they will.
With the best will in the world, with the plaintiffs having about 700k of their claim deffed out and one defendant being stuffed for Euros 500k, I don't see how either of those parties can spin it as a major victory, I would have thought it more like a score draw going into extra time. The winners were the publishers and TV company as they were let off.If you believe that being ordered to pay 500,000 euros in damages is a similar result as receiving a payment of 500,000 euros in damages (un unprecedentedly huge sum in Portgugal apparently) then you truly have jumped the shark.
Not interested in discussing Mr Amaral's appeal on a thread specifically set up for the purpose ... oh well, one wonders why you bother to post at all since you never seem to have a contribution to make on anything at all except for continual put down?
Not interested in discussing Mr Amaral's appeal on a thread specifically set up for the purpose ... oh well, one wonders why you bother to post at all since you never seem to have a contribution to make on anything at all except for continual put down?
I learned long ago not to be bothered about things over which I have no control.That goes for every aspect of this case so why bother about any of it at all? It's a very good question Jassi, perhaps you could explain why you bother posting on the subject?
In this case, lawyers will decide about the appeal without any input from you or I.
That goes for every aspect of this case so why bother about any of it at all? It's a very good question Jassi, perhaps you could explain why you bother posting on the subject?
So dave, when will they get the money ? 8)-)))
and for the mccanns, that's what it's all about.
8(0(*
seeing amaral deprived of his own money is good enough
Of course dave, and we all know why. 8((()*/What strange reasoning you have Stephen 8)-)))
Yet you support parents whose actions led to the disappearance of Madeleine.
Nice one dave &%&£(+ &%&£(+ &%&£(+ &%&£(+
Of course dave, and we all know why. 8((()*/
Yet you support parents whose actions led to the disappearance of Madeleine.
Nice one dave &%&£(+ &%&£(+ &%&£(+ &%&£(+
I support Kate and Gerry who are the victims of a crime
What strange reasoning you have Stephen 8)-)))
Very worrying that there are people around that think like you.
Not many tho
Actually dave, you don't know the mccanns were victims of the crime, as you don't know who carried out the crime.
8(0(*
What a hypocrite.
You and other mccann supporters have tried to glory in what you perceive as the humiliation of Amaral and the award of money to parents who left their children all by themselves with no one to protect them, and on whom this case rests.
I learned long ago not to be bothered about things over which I have no control.
In this case, lawyers will decide about the appeal without any input from you or I.
What a hypocrite.
You and other mccann supporters have tried to glory in what you perceive as the humiliation of Amaral and the award of money to parents who left their children all by themselves with no one to protect them, and on whom this case rests.
I could only hazard a guess as to why others post, with some apparently spending up to 18 hours a day on line.
I believe Kate and Gerry as do SY...I don't give a toss what a pillock like you thinks...I'm sure you support my right to free speech
Everybody's' contribution is only guesswork or opinion, unless, of course, you have inside information.
Interesting you admit the children required protection ... unfortunately holidaymakers knew nothing of the home invasions which had occurred, particularly not the two recent ones in block 5A one of which was directly above the McCann apartment ... or they may have been more on their guard.
The case in which the learned Judge ruled against Goncalo Amaral rests on the unlawful breaking of confidentiality and the unlawful denial of Madeleine McCann's parents right to be considered innocent.
The judgement has been a long time coming ... and whether it can be appealed or not is in the hands of the Portuguese Courts.
So you really think many people support the mccanns. &%&£(+ &%&£(+ &%&£(+Everyone that I know, bar one, supports The Mccanns.... even if not actively like some of us.
Everyone that I know, bar one, supports The Mccanns.... even if not actively like some of us.
They all think the peeps on your side are dreadful to be brutally honest.
Everybody's' contribution is only guesswork or opinion, unless, of course, you have inside information.
I'd agree that the amount seems huge by PT standards, but so were Amaral's earnings. From what could be legally established, he earned €382k in around two years. Is that not an above average income for most Portuguese? Strangely, that fact isn't often mentioned, either.
Re: The judge did not agree, however, that the book had hindered the search for Madeleine
I accept that as a loose formulation, but the issue (IMO) is not that she disagreed, but there as no supporting evidence to the contrary.
Jumping the gun a bit, perhaps.
Amaral has the right to appeal.
Whether he has the ability to appeal remains to be seen.
He will need to establish grounds for appeal. And find a lawyer willing and able to take the case.
Time will tell.
Gonçalo Amaral already has a lawyer.
a smart person hasWho was that then?
While having an interest in the topic, I am also here to entertain myself by reading the stupidity of some of the posts on here . Do you object ?Not at all, that's why I'm here too. 8(0(* However, if no one bothered to comment on the various threads about the case, including this one, then there would be very little material with which to entertain oneself, agreed?
If you believe that being ordered to pay 500,000 euros in damages is a similar result as receiving a payment of 500,000 euros in damages (un unprecedentedly huge sum in Portgugal apparently) then you truly have jumped the shark.I don't think I couched it in those terms. You have done though which is FA to do with what I posted. As usual.
I don't think I couched it in those terms. You have done though which is FA to do with what I posted. As usual.This was the term in which you couched the court verdict:
I would have thought it more like a score draw
This was the term in which you couched the court verdict:
Soooo, if you're not saying that being ordered to pay 500,000 euros in damages is a similar result (in terms of success vs failure) as receiving a payment of 500,000 euros in damages then what ARE you saying?
Try to express it in terms of the objectives of the writ. Which objectives were achieved and which were not?Amaral's objective was to walk away from court with his finances intact, and his career as a media McCann-basher restored, thoroughly vindicated. None of these things occurred. The McCanns' objective was to make Amaral pay for the suffering and hurt he inflicted on their family, and to get the book and the DVD withdrawn permanently. All of these things came to pass. The McCanns were awarded the largest ever damages payout awarded against a Portuguese citizen. I'd call that 3-nil to Team McCann in the Champion's League Final.
This was the term in which you couched the court verdict:
Soooo, if you're not saying that being ordered to pay 500,000 euros in damages is a similar result (in terms of success vs failure) as receiving a payment of 500,000 euros in damages then what ARE you saying?
They haven't got a penny.
They do however have legal expenses, which will continue to mount.
Not at all, that's why I'm here too. 8(0(* However, if no one bothered to comment on the various threads about the case, including this one, then there would be very little material with which to entertain oneself, agreed?
Try to express it in terms of the objectives of the writ. Which objectives were achieved and which were not?
They haven't got a penny.Amaral has been made to pay for the shit he has heaped on the McCann family for the last 8 years, even if not a single penny has passed from his account into theirs (yet). If you don't believe me, ask him - he's not exactly living the Life of Riley is he?
They do however have legal expenses, which will continue to mount.
Amaral has been made to pay for the shit he has heaped on the McCann family for the last 8 years, even if not a single penny has passed from his account into theirs (yet). If you don't believe me, ask him - he's not exactly living the Life of Riley is he?
Blimey Alf that means me you and Jassi are a team. We need a name a uniform and a manager now.
The 'shit' imposed on the mccanns is self imposed.If the shit imposed on the McCanns is self-imposed then perhaps you can explain why the judge awarded them half a million euros in damages against Amaral?
Useless parenting skills were on display.
and they loved blaming other people for their incompetence.
If the shit imposed on the McCanns is self-imposed then perhaps you can explain why the judge awarded them half a million euros in damages against Amaral?
Who is responsible for the whole case alfred ?Again:
Who left their children without any protection or guard ?
Was it the tooth fairies with their pink spots in green tights ?
Again:
If the shit imposed on the McCanns is self-imposed then perhaps you can explain why the judge awarded them half a million euros in damages against Amaral?
Another person who does not respect the rule of law. Judge's don't hand down opinions, they hand down judgements, based on law.
Why are you determined to take this thread off topic into a discussion about the McCanns as parents? It's something you do on pretty much every single thread when your views are challenged, I think you should be given a warning for repeatedly doing this, what say the Mods?
Amaral's objective was to walk away from court with his finances intact, and his career as a media McCann-basher restored, thoroughly vindicated. None of these things occurred. The McCanns' objective was to make Amaral pay for the suffering and hurt he inflicted on their family, and to get the book and the DVD withdrawn permanently. All of these things came to pass. The McCanns were awarded the largest ever damages payout awarded against a Portuguese citizen. I'd call that 3-nil to Team McCann in the Champion's League Final.
you mean put the spin you wish onto it. let's try this...I buy a lottery ticket...last week the winner won 1,000,000...this week I win and get only 500,000...do you think I would be unhappy
No alfred, they give the judgement based on their interpretation of the law.
Amarals objective is irrelevant. The relevant objectives are those what are writ in the writ.The overall objective was to punish Amaral. OK, they asked for a million and only got 500k - maybe they aimed high, but realistically expected less, who knows, except we do know that for them it wasn't about the money and all about making Amaral pay, and about getting him to shut up and his book and video pulled. There is no other way to put it - this was an unmitigated disaster for Amaral, and the sweetest victory for the McCanns. I don't see Amaral crowing about "score draws" and the award being only half that which was asked for, I see a man on the brink of utter ruin, reliant on handouts and charity from a bunch of misguided, gullible fools who are egging him on to potentially even greater humiliation and loss. That's not a position I'd be happy to find myself in.
Those objectives are clearly defined in the judgement you so kindly posted a link to what now seems like a elephants age ago but was only about a fortnight.
Compare the items the writ sought with that which has been granted by the judge. I don't see how you can judge success or otherwise without making that comparison.
The overall objective was to punish Amaral. OK, they asked for a million and only got 500k - maybe they aimed high, but realistically expected less, who knows, except we do know that for them it wasn't about the money and all about making Amaral pay, and about getting him to shut up and his book and video pulled. There is no other way to put it - this was an unmitigated disaster for Amaral, and the sweetest victory for the McCanns. I don't see Amaral crowing about "score draws" and the award being only half that which was asked for, I see a man on the brink of utter ruin, reliant on handouts and charity from a bunch of misguided, gullible fools who are egging him on to potentially even greater humiliation and loss. That's not a position I'd be happy to find myself in.
It was always the judgment rather than the money that mattered most to the McCanns.
They have confirmation that Amaral's book is a work of fiction purporting to be a factual record of the shelved investigation commenced in 2007.
Obviously after finding Madeleine, that is what the McCanns wanted most.
The book never harmed the search.
A total fallacy.
This has all been about the mccanns wanting revenge on Amaral.
The overall objective was to punish Amaral. OK, they asked for a million and only got 500k - maybe they aimed high, but realistically expected less, who knows, except we do know that for them it wasn't about the money and all about making Amaral pay, and about getting him to shut up and his book and video pulled. There is no other way to put it - this was an unmitigated disaster for Amaral, and the sweetest victory for the McCanns. I don't see Amaral crowing about "score draws" and the award being only half that which was asked for, I see a man on the brink of utter ruin, reliant on handouts and charity from a bunch of misguided, gullible fools who are egging him on to potentially even greater humiliation and loss. That's not a position I'd be happy to find myself in.According to the writ the key objectives were.
They wanted to punish Amaral for falsely accusing them of responsibility for Madeleine's (unconfirmed) "death"; for falsely accusing them of covering up the "fact" of her "death"; and for falsely accusing them of launching a fraudulent fund in their (dead!) daughter's name.
Is that all so unreasonable?
It has not yet been established how and when exactly Madeleine 'disappeared'.
Has the 'thesis' of accidental death been disproved ferryman ?
Disproved?
There's no evidence for it.
There are indications ferryman, not corroborated by forensics.
Meanwhile there is no evidence whatsoever worth a grain of salt to support abduction.
Even Redwood admitted Madeleine may not have left the apartment alive.
You are confusing concepts.
There is not a shred of evidence that Kate or Gerry harmed Madeleine.
According to the writ the key objectives were.So if it is your contention that the time to celebrate is after the appeal, then assuming the judgement remains the same, we must conclude that the trial was a success for the McCanns and a failure for Amaral. It took a while but we got there in the end!
Damages for G & K
Damages for Madeleine
Damages for Amelie
Damages for Sean
Have the court confirm the book damaged the search for Madeleine.
By implication punish Amaral, the publishers and the TV company.
In the event the judge only awarded damages (less than half the total sum claimed) to G & K to be paid by Amaral subject to being upheld on appeal. Whether it is unprecedented in Portugal is largely irrelevant as it would appear to based on his income from the book.
Watch this space.
If the appeal court upholds the judgment then it's time to reach for the Bolly. Before then would be a little previous as we used to say.
Whether or not Amaral is having ring twitter is irrelevant.
I would not be happy in his position either but whatever country you live in the general advice of "never get your self in the hands of the courts" is sound.
Now bac to the topic.
How will mccann supporters react, if the appeal case goes ahead as looks a certainty and the verdict of the previous court is overturned ?
Now bac to the topic.
How will mccann supporters react, if the appeal case goes ahead as looks a certainty and the verdict of the previous court is overturned ?
how will you react if the appeal court uphold the verdict
I would probably top myself
Try answering my question first.
I would probably top myself@)(++(*
So if it is your contention that the time to celebrate is after the appeal, then assuming the judgement remains the same, we must conclude that the trial was a success for the McCanns and a failure for Amaral. It took a while but we got there in the end!
I did not say celebrate a success I said reach for the Bolly.So when you said "If the appeal court upholds the judgment then it's time to reach for the Bolly" you didn"t mean celebrate a success??! @)(++(* What DID you mean then?
If the case was a resounding legal success for the McCanns why did the judge apportion 60% court costs for them to pay do you suppose?
Me? if I got out of it not costing me money I would consider it a result. There is small matter of 6 years of legal fees to be considered.
As I observed just after the judgement "It would be interesting to see a P & L for this little venture".
I did not say celebrate a success I said reach for the Bolly.
If the case was a resounding legal success for the McCanns why did the judge apportion 60% court costs for them to pay do you suppose?
Me? if I got out of it not costing me money I would consider it a result. There is small matter of 6 years of legal fees to be considered.
As I observed just after the judgement "It would be interesting to see a P & L for this little venture".
if you want to pretend this is not a fantastic victory for the McCanns...carry on. I wonder what amaral thinks about the result...humiliated by his own country's court...ordered to pay the McCanns 500,000...he can appeal but his own assets still frozen...all this having claimed a few months ago he had won.....he must be devastatedYes, if this result was such a failure for the McCanns then why is it not they who are appealing the judge's decision?
if you want to pretend this is not a fantastic victory for the McCanns...carry on. I wonder what amaral thinks about the result...humiliated by his own country's court...ordered to pay the McCanns 500,000...he can appeal but his own assets still frozen...all this having claimed a few months ago he had won.....he must be devastated
if you want to pretend this is not a fantastic victory for the McCanns...carry on. I wonder what amaral thinks about the result...humiliated by his own country's court...ordered to pay the McCanns 500,000...he can appeal but his own assets still frozen...all this having claimed a few months ago he had won.....he must be devastated
Yes, if this result was such a failure for the McCanns then why is it not they who are appealing the judge's decision?
What is very visible, is that the case is going to appeal, and as has happened before, the initial verdict can be overturned.
The mccanns have not received a penny, Amaral's assets are frozen for now, as they have been for some time.
Meanwhile Amaral has had several hundreds of people donating to his appeal fund, but poor kate mccann, who we are constantly reminded is very popular @)(++(* @)(++(* @)(++(* has barely managed to get a 100 people to back her for a charity run.
Hmmm ... so that is "victory" having one's assets remaining frozen by the Portuguese Courts ... wonder if Mr Amaral views it in quite that light.
As far as subscribing to Mr Amaral's appeal fund goes ... people are entitled to do what they will with their charity ... however your constant whining comparison with the money being collected by Kate McCann for a charity bike ride is really so revealing.
If Mr Amaral is allowed to appeal the decision of a Portuguese Court ... well and good ... but I think he may be denying himself the opportunity to cut his losses and have access to his own funds.
In the interim ... Madeleine McCann's case remains active ... and I am sure if it leads to a positive result for Madeleine ... you will be among the first to rejoice.
That could very well happen yet after the next round.All sorts of things could happen, but we are discussing the here and now. If the result was such a flop for the McCanns why haven't they appealed?
if you want to pretend this is not a fantastic victory for the McCanns...carry on. I wonder what amaral thinks about the result...humiliated by his own country's court...ordered to pay the McCanns 500,000...he can appeal but his own assets still frozen...all this having claimed a few months ago he had won.....he must be devastatedI am not pretending anything. The same question remains.
So when you said "If the appeal court upholds the judgment then it's time to reach for the Bolly" you didn"t mean celebrate a success??! @)(++(* What DID you mean then?
As for the rest of your post I believe it is standard practice for both sides to share legal costs, I think you'd have to be really, really REALLY naive to believe that 6 years of court action wouldn't cost you anything, I'm sure the McCanns feel however that it was worth every penny to wipe the smug expression of Amaral's mush. A P & L for Amaral's "little venture" would indeed be very interesting indeed.
All sorts of things could happen, but we are discussing the here and now. If the result was such a flop for the McCanns why haven't they appealed?
I am not pretending anything. The same question remains.
Why do you think it is a fantastic victory when the game is not finished? The judgement is subject to appeal.
Whether Amaral is devastated or his assets remain frozen is not relevant to the argument. I don't give a monkeys about Amaral or the McCanns but I am fascinated by the mindset that can declare an unfinished game a victory for one side or the other.
don't you realise it's the victories that point to how the war is going
Pathetic.
If mccann had received hundreds of backers for the charity you would be gloating.
However, in the cold light of day is it finally dawning on you and others, that the mccanns are far from popular ?
An even pettier post than usual, and that is saying something, but wouldn't it be rather an adventure to start posting which doesn't involve slagging off Kate McCann and her charitable work and stick to the topic of the thread which, in this case, appears to be something along the lines of Mr Amaral's appeal?
don't you realise it's the victories that point to how the war is going
don't you realise it's the victories that point to how the war is going
If an appeal has been confirmed, what are the likely bases for one?
Probably the very high sum involved, unheard of in Portugal previously.
Work it out for yourself you should be able to without my help.Nope I've tried to figure out an alternative meaning to "reach for the Bolly" other than celebrate but I have failed. Bolly is champagne, champagne is traditionally drank at times of celebration, so what is my little brain missing here?
Is it?
So in your opinion it is about revenge nothing more nothing less?
Think of your own lines.
I am not pretending anything. The same question remains.
Why do you think it is a fantastic victory when the game is not finished? The judgement is subject to appeal.
Whether Amaral is devastated or his assets remain frozen is not relevant to the argument. I don't give a monkeys about Amaral or the McCanns but I am fascinated by the mindset that can declare an unfinished game a victory for one side or the other.
As someone once said to me: "Don't buy a bus ticket to market until your hens have produced".
Fair enough.
But I'm still intrigued as to the bases for an appeal.
The quantum, perhaps, but what else?
The judgement runs to over fifty pages, much of which refers to previous European Court decisions in respect of human rights. Ultimately, the honourable Lady Judge had to take a stand but in the end it was her decision and interpretation of the evidence which was submitted to and given in the Court.
A higher Court could very well take a different view as was seen already in the original book ban.
It seems amaral actually broke some laws...nothing to do with opinion
The judgement runs to over fifty pages, much of which refers to previous European Court decisions in respect of human rights. Ultimately, the honourable Lady Judge had to take a stand but in the end it was her decision and interpretation of the evidence which was submitted to and given in the Court.
A higher Court could very well take a different view as was seen already in the original book ban.
Always possible.
I did find that judgement odd when it said that
In the book, we do not verify any reference to any facts that are not in that dispatch.
Where the author differs from the Prosecutors who have written the dispatch, is in the logical, police-work-related and investigative interpretation that he does of those facts.
In that aspect, we stand before the exercise of freedom of opinion, which is a domain in which the author is an expert, as he was a criminal investigator for 26 years.
With all due respect to the honourable Supreme Court judges, I'm not convinced that they actually compared the book to the files in detail... as if they had, they may have noticed that not all the "facts" are recorded in the files. I'm not convinced, either, that they considered his experience in the field of missing children... of which there appears to be only one other.
If the ruling is based on an incorrect appreciation of facts, is that ruling absolute?
Isn't that why there is an option to appeal?
My comment was about the Supreme Court ruling concerning the injunction.
Nope I've tried to figure out an alternative meaning to "reach for the Bolly" other than celebrate but I have failed. Bolly is champagne, champagne is traditionally drank at times of celebration, so what is my little brain missing here?
[/b]OK - from the top.
I am not beating about the bush. I was quite clear in what I said in the first instance, you then inserted a word I had used to change the sense then started arguing about that. The word is still missing above. If you can't work it out so be it.
The judgement runs to over fifty pages, much of which refers to previous European Court decisions in respect of human rights. Ultimately, the honourable Lady Judge had to take a stand but in the end it was her decision and interpretation of the evidence which was submitted to and given in the Court.
A higher Court could very well take a different view as was seen already in the original book ban. That said, I would have thought that a lower Court overturning a previous ruling by the Supreme Court could in itself be grounds for appeal.
OK - from the top.
You said:
"If the appeal court upholds the judgment then it's time to reach for the Bolly".
You then claimed that "reaching for the Bolly" did not mean "to celebrate a success"
Therefore please explain what you meant by "reaching for the Bolly".
Thanks in anticipation.
The judge confirmed that the book was factual and based on the police files as did the Tribunal de Relação in October 2010.
OK I meant: "let's have a brew it's all over".Er...I did? So, in your funny old world "reaching for the Bolly" means let's have a cup of tea, it's all over". Right, I getcha now. @)(++(*
But then you realised that in the first place.
do you not realise amaral lied in his book...that should answer your question
The UK MSM have regularly reported on the Madeleine mcCann case, even when there is very little new to report. How strange that they are not reporting on the support for Goncalo Amaral.
Within 11 days, the British fighting fund set up to help the former policeman dubbed by UK media as the “Maddie Lie Cop” has reached over €13,000......
..the instigator of the British appeal fund raising money for Amaral’s appeal tells us she has been approached by a number of UK newspapers, but none of them are keen to write about her effort until it reaches the €25,000 target.
As this latest example of “people-power” righting what they see is a wrong plays out, the mainstream British media is making much of the so-called string of burglaries that appears to have taken place on the resort from which Madeleine went missing just over eight years ago. It’s a line that has surfaced every now and then in this infinite mystery and which many query, as if there truly had been a spate of attacks on children in the Algarve, the feeling is that local and national media would have heard about them. As a source told us this week, what were originally described as “five or six cases, then morphed into over a dozen and suddenly exploded into 30 cases or so, if we are to believe the UK media”.
http://portugalresident.com/maddie-cop%E2%80%99s-legal-fund-%E2%80%9Cwell-on-the-way%E2%80%9D-to-the-%E2%82%AC25000-target
The judge confirmed that the book was factual and based on the police files as did the Tribunal de Relação in October 2010.
RE: The bit in bold above - why would Leanne Baulch have already been approached by journalists who were NOT interested in covering the story until it reached £25k - can you explain the sense of that?
"Hello Leanne - I'm a journalist with the Sun and I'm just contacting you to let you knowI'm not interested in writing about your fund until it reaches £25k".
Yeah, as any intelligent person can see, that makes no sense at all!
Ow er, do I see another intelligent person! Perhaps the Media were after something else? Interesting that no-one's commented on the 'so-called burglaries' which no-one in the Algarve or even in Portugal has heard of?What sort of something else would they be interested in from Leanne Baulch? Who does her hair maybe?
The judge confirmed that the book was factual and based on the police files as did the Tribunal de Relação in October 2010.
RE: The bit in bold above - why would Leanne Baulch have already been approached by journalists who were NOT interested in covering the story until it reached £25k - can you explain the sense of that?
"Hello Leanne - I'm a journalist with the Sun and I'm just contacting you to let you knowI'm not interested in writing about your fund until it reaches £25k".
Yeah, as any intelligent person can see, that makes no sense at all!
What sort of something else would they be interested in from Leanne Baulch? Who does her hair maybe?
What is your point re the break -ins? You think because (according to N Donn) no one in PT has heard of them that they have been invented by the Met?
I agree ...looks like she approached the press and were told they were not interested
Why does it "look like" she approached the press? Do you have evidence to point to that? After the Brenda Leyland tragedy I doubt anyone would "contact the press" if they were on the "wrong side".
The Sun, I think, already did an article on "trolls" fund raising for Mr Amaral. It's more than likely other papers did get in touch. That's the more "intelligent" probability.
Why does it "look like" she approached the press? Do you have evidence to point to that? After the Brenda Leyland tragedy I doubt anyone would "contact the press" if they were on the "wrong side".Did you read Natasha's article? It makes little sense. Journos do not approach people to tell them they're not interested in covering their stories until circumstances change. It certainly sounds much more likely that Baulch approached them and that is why the journos said what they did, I doubt you see the logic in that but there we are.
The Sun, I think, already did an article on "trolls" fund raising for Mr Amaral. It's more than likely other papers did get in touch. That's the more "intelligent" probability.
Why does it "look like" she approached the press? Do you have evidence to point to that? After the Brenda Leyland tragedy I doubt anyone would "contact the press" if they were on the "wrong side".
The Sun, I think, already did an article on "trolls" fund raising for Mr Amaral. It's more than likely other papers did get in touch. That's the more "intelligent" probability.
Not read that part of the learned judge's judgement.
But do you really believe (for example) that Amaral contradicted and corrected Prior on interpretation of the forensic results?
Or that Prior then rang the FSS to berate them on the PJ's powers of arrest?
Do you still think that the woman at the trial who said most of Amaral's book was made up was being ironic?
Erm... that's not exactly what she said, is it, Montclair?
https://pbs.twimg.com/media/CE0BesSWAAAhEOf.pngHow cynical and tasteless can The Gonc Fanclub get? Cashing in on Madeleine's birthday to finance the man who wrote her off as dead years ago and who tried to convince the world her parents hid her remains. Is there no end to these vile people's cruelty?
could someone tell me ..how is giving money to amaral going to help Maddie...more lies
https://pbs.twimg.com/media/CE0BesSWAAAhEOf.png
could someone tell me ..how is giving money to amaral going to help Maddie...more lies
You surely cannot believe what you write. Did you not see the marketing tools created to drum up support for Amaral's fund that were plastered all over the net yesterday, examples of which were posted on this forum by Davel?
No, I don't do screen grabs, I'm not a cataloguer of "sceptic" crap. Are you disputing the use of this graphic by sceptics to drum up funds for Amaral?
I'm asking for context. As I haven't seen the graphic or anything of a similar nature how am I to know it hasn't simply been 'knocked up' to discredit sceptics and/or the fund ?LOL. So you agree it is discreditable then? I suggest you take a look around Facebook and Twitter, I'm sure you'll stumble across it there...
LOL. So you agree it is discreditable then? I suggest you take a look around Facebook and Twitter, I'm sure you'll stumble across it there...
Why would they get in touch and not want a story...she is courting publicity...I don't particularly blame her...she believes amaral when he says the dogs prove maddie died in the apartment...no wonder these people think there's a conspiracy...if I believed what amaral has said I would think the same. The difference is I have enough sense to realise amaral is lying
Did you read Natasha's article? It makes little sense. Journos do not approach people to tell them they're not interested in covering their stories until circumstances change. It certainly sounds much more likely that Baulch approached them and that is why the journos said what they did, I doubt you see the logic in that but there we are.
If the editors read the comments by those donating they would have realised that the effect of the Sun article was to increase donations. That's why they are waiting to report the story in case they are accused of encouraging the fundraising too imo.
So it seems this 25000 eruo target will be reached.
What next?
34542.59 EUR target actually.
£15,817 of £25k
Raised by 1,023 people in 14 days
Where is the higher figure cited?
And why, through time, has the 25K figure remained unchanged, while the figure cited as raised has steadily risen?
You said 25,000 EUR target. It's not EUR, it's pounds. I calculated the EUR figure for you ?{)(**
You said 25,000 EUR target. It's not EUR, it's pounds. I calculated the EUR figure for you ?{)(**
Fair enough.
My mistake.
When the target figure is reached, what next?
it will pay for his appeal
Nothing he has written or said has contributed in any way to finding her, nor is it likely to.
a few mcann supporters seem very distresssed and worried about the fund for GA what are they scared of the mcanns have had a long running fund for 8 years
I suppose they find it hard to understand why people prefer to support a 'disgraced' Portuguese policeman than a professional couple of UK doctors whose friends and family have all testified as to what good parents they were; except for a few evenings on holiday of course.
Not at all ... I think people may have a perfect understanding of why there are those who wish to contribute to Mr Amaral's appeal fund ... as far as I am concerned, if that is what they wish to do with their money that is entirely a decision for them to make.
Not at all ... I think people may have a perfect understanding of why there are those who wish to contribute to Mr Amaral's appeal fund ... as far as I am concerned, if that is what they wish to do with their money that is entirely a decision for them to make.
That's not the case Carana. By writing the book and having it distributed worldwide Goncalo Amaral created an awareness of the circumstances of Maddies disappearance.
A point worth noting is that Goncalo Amaral has never complained or sought redress when his book was copied and posted all over the web yet the McCanns have sought to do so at every juncture. One could be forgiven for believing that they are more interested in the funds the book brings in than than the message it carries.
and absolutely nothing to do with you.
I suppose they find it hard to understand why people prefer to support a 'disgraced' Portuguese policeman than a professional couple of UK doctors whose friends and family have all testified as to what good parents they were; except for a few evenings on holiday of course.
I don't find it hard to understand. IMO Some sceptics will support anything if they believe it will hurt the McCann family, even if it means supporting a corrupt policeman with a criminal record. Simples.
I used to have some sympathy for the McCanns but that died when I came to realise that they failed to cooperate fully with the official investigation being conducted by the Portuguese and English police and decided to bring in a bunch of criminals masquerading as private investigators.
I understand entirely their concerns regarding the conduct of the inquiry into Madeleine's disappearance and their mounting concerns which led to the employment of private investigators who at the least were looking for a living child.
I don't find it hard to understand. IMO Some sceptics will support anything if they believe it will hurt the McCann family, even if it means supporting a corrupt policeman with a criminal record. Simples.
As a reminder for some people.
' Here is your "Extract of the Day" from the Lisbon judge's ruling.
"It is important to keep in mind that it is not illegal to sustain the thesis according to which Madeleine McCann died in the apartment of Praia da Luz and that her body was concealed by her parents."
http://www.gerrymccannsblogs.co.uk/v01.htm '
Courtesy of the Amazon forum.
So all those people who have donated have lied about their reasons for doing so? In your opinion obviously. 8(>((
That's not the case Carana. By writing the book and having it distributed worldwide Goncalo Amaral created an awareness of the circumstances of Maddies disappearance.
A point worth noting is that Goncalo Amaral has never complained or sought redress when his book was copied and posted all over the web yet the McCanns have sought to do so at every juncture. One could be forgiven for believing that they are more interested in the funds the book brings in than than the message it carries.
From what I have read in the comments section - their reasons are based on their hatred of the McCanns. Even after the most offensive comments have been removed it still reeks of h.a.t.r.e.d directed at the McCanns IMO.
The same old myths, lies and disinformation - which many sceptics still believe are true are being repeated at length in the comments section - with no rebuttals. What has any of that got to do with Amaral's appeal - which incidentally - he is perfectly entitled to apply for. I have no problem with that.
I have not said anyone lied. I am simply giving my opinion on the reasons why some sceptics have decided to support a policeman who abused his privileged position to cover up the torture of a defenceless woman and was rightly given a criminal conviction as a result of that. What normal person would want to support such a proven corrupt policeman ? IMO there must be another reason - and I suggest it is the overriding desire of some to hurt the McCanns in any way they can and this is an opportunity to do just that.
If that is not the reason - then what is it based on? It can't be on Amarals brilliant handling of the case as he was removed from it by his own Portuguese authorities.
As a reminder for some people.
' Here is your "Extract of the Day" from the Lisbon judge's ruling.
"It is important to keep in mind that it is not illegal to sustain the thesis according to which Madeleine McCann died in the apartment of Praia da Luz and that her body was concealed by her parents."
http://www.gerrymccannsblogs.co.uk/v01.htm '
Courtesy of the Amazon forum.
In this country it would probably be funded from legal aid taxation to which you contribute.
So the notion that those who contribute to the defence of criminals are abnormal ?...................fill in the rest yourself.
From what I have read in the comments section - their reasons are based on their hatred of the McCanns. Even after the most offensive comments have been removed it still reeks of h.a.t.r.e.d directed at the McCanns IMO.
The same old myths, lies and disinformation - which many sceptics still believe are true are being repeated at length in the comments section - with no rebuttals. What has any of that got to do with Amaral's appeal - which incidentally - he is perfectly entitled to apply for. I have no problem with that.
I have not said anyone lied. I am simply giving my opinion on the reasons why some sceptics have decided to support a policeman who abused his privileged position to cover up the torture of a defenceless woman and was rightly given a criminal conviction as a result of that. What normal person would want to support such a proven corrupt policeman ? IMO there must be another reason - and I suggest it is the overriding desire of some to hurt the McCanns in any way they can and this is an opportunity to do just that.
If that is not the reason - then what is it based on? It can't be on Amarals brilliant handling of the case as he was removed from it by his own Portuguese authorities.
So they're liars and abnormal people now? In your opinion, of course.
Media reports on the official ruling to archive the case, which had taken into account all of the information known at the time (not just cherry-picked details), came to a different conclusion.
On your second point, Amaral's publishers might have had more reasons to seek legal redress than Amaral himself over amateur translations... The publishers would have known that it was extremely unlikely that they could have sold the rights to any anglophone country. If that's the reasoning behind not bothering, then Amaral wouldn't have got his royalties in any case.
Could it not simply be the case that Amaral was genuinely interested in finding Maddie rather than filling the coffers?
Could it not simply be the case that Amaral was genuinely interested in finding Maddie rather than filling the coffers?
Could it not simply be the case that Amaral was genuinely interested in finding Maddie rather than filling the coffers?
Could it not simply be the case that Amaral was genuinely interested in finding Maddie rather than filling the coffers?
Hi Alfred, Ben Perrin from The Sun Newspaper asked if I would give him an interview when the fund reaches £25K. Hope this clears up some confusion.
Ahhh. Seeing as you're here: Are the funds raised going directly to the original fund set up via PjGA?
Hi Alfred, Ben Perrin from The Sun Newspaper asked if I would give him an interview when the fund reaches £25K. Hope this clears up some confusion.
Yes they are, all funds are deposited directly to the PJGA bank account. We have now raised £16,000.
Was that before or after it while they were attempting to take Amaral down?
Hi Leanne. Were you surprised at the response to your fundraiser?
In a way, yes ..I didn't expect the MSM to report on the fund.
The Sun article certainly helped it along by saying donations were being made by 'trolls' @)(++(*
The Sun article certainly helped it along by saying donations were being made by 'trolls' @)(++(*
I'm not sure that was their intention, but it certainly gave the fund a boost.
Do you have any idea how much will actually be needed for an appeal to go ahead, and if an appeal will be allowed?
In this country it would probably be funded from legal aid taxation to which you contribute.
So the notion that those who contribute to the defence of criminals are abnormal ?...................fill in the rest yourself.
I am not certain, but I believe the appeal process could cost around £40,000. I strongly believe the appeal will be allowed, there is no reason for it not to.
I am not certain, but I believe the appeal process could cost around £40,000. I strongly believe the appeal will be allowed, there is no reason for it not to.
It doesn't seem to have occurred to benice and other mccann supporters that people do have a mind of their own, and after viewing the evidence available don't believe the mccanns accounts of events.
you say you strongly believe...do you have any knowledge of Portuguese law and what his grounds will be
In a way, yes ..I didn't expect the MSM to report on the fund.
Leanne, how do you feel about people putting a message out on Madeleine's birthday asking for donations to celebrate her birthday? Did this upset you at all?
I even saw message saying 'help Madeleine' how a donation to a fund set up for a Police Officer who wrote Madeleine off would help Madeleine, I really do not know, could you tell me?
It is my belief, after analysing the court report, it was very much in favour of Goncalo. I am not privy to any of the information relating to the appeal, although even if I was, I don't think discussing it on an open forum is advisable.
The purpose of the fund is very clear, the reason people choose to donate is down to them. I found the messages left to be very kind, especially towards Madeleine. People are standing with Goncalo, to see justice served for Madeleine. He is the one man that has stood by his beliefs, in order to get the truth for Madeleine McCann, and I believe will continue to do so.
Do you have an opinion on those who use other's names on their contribution? Isabel Duarte Madeleine McCann's parents lawyer for one.
His beliefs happen to be wrong and based on no evidence according to the Portuguese archiving report. his actions have actually denied Maddie justice. Even sceptics on here understand he misunderstood the evidence.
His beliefs happen to be wrong and based on no evidence according to the Portuguese archiving report. his actions have actually denied Maddie justice. Even sceptics on here understand he misunderstood the evidence.
'His beliefs happen to be wrong...'
When has the accidental death theory been disproved ?
Please feel free to speak for yourself, but if I am what you call a 'sceptic' I would ask you not to speak for me. According to the judge the evidence in Amaral's book was the same, on the whole, as that in the files. His conclusions were also not his alone, they were and are shared by others. The reason the judge found against him had less to do with the theory proposed in his book and more to do with whether he should, given his profession, have a) used the evidence in the files and b) failed to uphold the presumption of innocence.
The purpose of the fund is very clear, the reason people choose to donate is down to them. I found the messages left to be very kind, especially towards Madeleine. People are standing with Goncalo, to see justice served for Madeleine. He is the one man that has stood by his beliefs, in order to get the truth for Madeleine McCann, and I believe will continue to do so.
Please feel free to speak for yourself, but if I am what you call a 'sceptic' I would ask you not to speak for me. According to the judge the evidence in Amaral's book was the same, on the whole, as that in the files. His conclusions were also not his alone, they were and are shared by others. The reason the judge found against him had less to do with the theory proposed in his book and more to do with whether he should, given his profession, have a) used the evidence in the files and b) failed to uphold the presumption of innocence.
WOW!!! is that the basis of Mr Amaral's appeal. He really ought to have read the final report as opposed to the interim one.
I have no idea what the basis of the appeal will be, but I know what the judgement was about. The conclusion found that he used his position for material for the book and he broke the terms of his position as an ex policeman when he accused them.
So where are we?
1. Has it been confirmed that he has appealed? (I expect so, but I haven't seen any reliable confirmation yet)-
2. If he has, what are the points of contention?
It seems we have something else to look forward to...an article in the Sun about amaral's fund...it should be hilarious
With regard to the appeal system:so is it basically just putting a stamp on a letter
Within a period of 30 days (in this case, the judge gave 40 days), the appellant presents his appeal of the ruling, along with his reasons for the appeal, he can present arguments based on law and/or fact. The appeal is presented a quo, to the court (the judge who pronounced the first ruling).
The judge who pronounced the verdict analyses the application and reads the motivations. If, after reading them, the judge decides to maintain the original decision, the judge then analyses the requirements for presenting an appeal:
- If the decision is susceptible to appeal (this one is);
- If it is presented on time;
- If the person who appeals has the legitimacy to do so;
- If he has paid the "taxa de justiça" (the legal costs).
If these requirements have been fulfilled, the judge pronounces the official communication (despacho) of the admission of the appeal, informing that all of the requirements have been fulfilled, and the acts are sent to the Tribunal da Relaçao.
If the judge does not consider the appellant's arguments valid, she simply maintains her sentence, but she is required to send the appeal to the higher court if the appellant fulfills the objective requirements above. The judge has the possibility of changing her verdict.
With regard to the appeal system:
Within a period of 30 days (in this case, the judge gave 40 days), the appellant presents his appeal of the ruling, along with his reasons for the appeal, he can present arguments based on law and/or fact. The appeal is presented a quo, to the court (the judge who pronounced the first ruling).
The judge who pronounced the verdict analyses the application and reads the motivations. If, after reading them, the judge decides to maintain the original decision, the judge then analyses the requirements for presenting an appeal:
- If the decision is susceptible to appeal (this one is);
- If it is presented on time;
- If the person who appeals has the legitimacy to do so;
- If he has paid the "taxa de justiça" (the legal costs).
If these requirements have been fulfilled, the judge pronounces the official communication (despacho) of the admission of the appeal, informing that all of the requirements have been fulfilled, and the acts are sent to the Tribunal da Relaçao.
If the judge does not consider the appellant's arguments valid, she simply maintains her sentence, but she is required to send the appeal to the higher court if the appellant fulfills the objective requirements above. The judge has the possibility of changing her verdict.
So Amaral may be allowed to appeal.
Or he may not.
With regard to the appeal system:
Within a period of 30 days (in this case, the judge gave 40 days), the appellant presents his appeal of the ruling, along with his reasons for the appeal, he can present arguments based on law and/or fact. The appeal is presented a quo, to the court (the judge who pronounced the first ruling).
The judge who pronounced the verdict analyses the application and reads the motivations. If, after reading them, the judge decides to maintain the original decision, the judge then analyses the requirements for presenting an appeal:
- If the decision is susceptible to appeal (this one is);
- If it is presented on time;
- If the person who appeals has the legitimacy to do so;
- If he has paid the "taxa de justiça" (the legal costs).
If these requirements have been fulfilled, the judge pronounces the official communication (despacho) of the admission of the appeal, informing that all of the requirements have been fulfilled, and the acts are sent to the Tribunal da Relaçao.
If the judge does not consider the appellant's arguments valid, she simply maintains her sentence, but she is required to send the appeal to the higher court if the appellant fulfills the objective requirements above. The judge has the possibility of changing her verdict.
Why do you think Amaral's specified grounds of appeal will be automatically accepted?
The first instance court will then decide whether the appeal should be accepted. If it is accepted, the case is sent to the higher court.
The first instance court will then decide whether the appeal should be accepted. If it is accepted, the case is sent to the higher court.If this was not true then every single case in Portugal would automatically go through an appeals process. Is that what happens?
The first instance court will then decide whether the appeal should be accepted. If it is accepted, the case is sent to the higher court.
The first instance court does not debate the validity of the arguments of the appellant in their decision to send the appeal to the Tribunal da Relação. If the first court maintains their verdict after reading the arguments in the appeal and it is confirmed that the appellant has fulfilled those 4 requirements given in my previous post, then the first instance court has to send the appeal to the higher court.
The judge didn't rule on Amaral's thesis, so why should it be addressed by any appeal?
The point was raised about whether Amaral's theory has been disproved.
If it has been, that may have an impact on Amaral's appeal ...
A key part of Amaral's theory is that the Smiths saw Gerry carrying Madeleine ...
The point was raised about whether Amaral's theory has been disproved.
If it has been, that may have an impact on Amaral's appeal ...
A key part of Amaral's theory is that the Smiths saw Gerry carrying Madeleine ...
The judge didn't give an opinion about the theory so why would the truth or otherwise of it be relevant? There are two points on which the award was made; whether he should have used the case files and whether he should, as a former policeman, have upheld the presumption of innocence of suspects.
That the judge considers Amaral's theory disproved is inherent in her judgment.
You can believe what you wish, but she didn't make a ruling on it's truth, she just said it hurt the McCanns. Had you or I written it we wouldn't have had to pay anything
Thanks ferryman ... then his appeal is toast.
Where did she say that? Isn't there a difference between listing facts that hadn't been proven to the court's satisfaction and categorically ruling that it hadn't impeded the search?
I think as much as anything which has led to the unravelling of Mr Amaral's theory has been the initiation and the continuation of the search for Madeleine McCann which is being conducted by two highly professional and respected bodies.
If the judge was unable to find for the McCanns on the book ... it may very well have been on her mind when considering what she could find for them ... which may explain the enormity of the sum awarded to them.
Perhaps all will be revealed when the application for the appeal process is put before the courts?
Is the PJ included in the two? Only 40 years out of a dictatorship and so on. My how the worm has turned.
Equally it may have been on her mind she wanted to go out for dinner.
C'mon you can do better than that surely.
As demonstrated by recent prosecutions ... "the old order changeth yielding place to new" ... which may be why those who cling to the past may well be left standing at the door of the Portuguese Appeal Court.
Not to worry though, I'm sure people will still be desperate to finance appeals to the European Court of Human Rights. That might indeed put a different complexion on the locus of the book content as it reflects on the McCanns' Human Rights.
Part of the writ was that the book impeded the search for the child the judge decreed it hadn't been proved suggesting the book did not impede the search.
Tell you what lets delete the last line in my post because it doesn't alter the sense one jot.
i.e wreak as much revenge* on Dr Amaral as is humanly possibly and the key elements remain unknown. See original post.
* is it revenge people are after or a biblical reckoning do you think?
I don't really care. I am waiting for you to address the main of issue of my post:
"When the maximum revenge has been rained down on Dr Amaral and all that is left is his head and boots how will that have benefited the search and investigation"? or is it just about revenge on The Boogah Man?
One of Gonc's backers has donated a total of £1315 so far...it wasn't you was it Davel...? 8)--))
I am tempted so that I could leave a message..
The law has been enacted ... Mr Amaral intends to appeal the Judge's decision.
Does the delivery of Justice equate with "revenge raining down onDrMr Amaral"???? 8)-)))
Amaral accuses them (perhaps not latterly) of responsibility for Madeleine's death and of hiding her body/fabricating an abduction plus launching a fraudulent fund in her name ...
Something of a retreat (now)
What changed?
Amaral accuses them (perhaps not latterly) of responsibility for Madeleine's death and of hiding her body/fabricating an abduction plus launching a fraudulent fund in her name ...
Something of a retreat (now)
What changed?
I can't speak for him. That's his opinion, based on the evidence. He was a policeman and police don't need to be 100% certain to pass the available evidence to the prosecutors. Neither do courts and juries need to be 100% certain.
Policemen don't have to write books of the sort Amaral wrote.
If he hadn't, if he had kept whatever thoughts he expressed strictly confined to the process, he'd be fine (aside, possibly, from breach of secrecy arising from leaks).
He didn't.
He wrote a book.
And he's now in a pickle.
The judge has given a verdict which is open to appeal. I have no quibble with that at all. It seems you and your cohorts do, judging by the ceaseless invective. If it sinks the gentleman because that is the law fair dos I doubt I will lose any sleep or celebrate what ever the outcome.
Lets narrow it down even further and see if you can answer the question the question you are avoiding.
What effect will anything that happens to Dr Amaral have on finding the perpetrators of the crime (if one has been committed) and discovering the fate of Madeleine McCann?
You seem to be interested merely in making less than complimentary remarks about Dr Amaral rather than anything else despite your protestations to the contrary.
The judgment ruling that Amaral has libelled the McCanns was handed down on 28 April.
It's now 17th May.
Amaral has had half his allotted time of 40 days to lodge his appeal.
By my reckoning he's got till roughly the first week in June to get his appeal in.
Don't worry ferryman.
The judgment ruling that Amaral has libelled the McCanns was handed down on 28 April.
It's now 17th May.
Amaral has had half his allotted time of 40 days to lodge his appeal.
By my reckoning he's got till roughly the first week in June to get his appeal in.
The judgment ruling that Amaral has libelled the McCanns was handed down on 28 April.
It's now 17th May.
Amaral has had half his allotted time of 40 days to lodge his appeal.
By my reckoning he's got till roughly the first week in June to get his appeal in.
The ruling never stated that Gonçalo Amaral had libelled the McCanns. Get it straight.
The judgment ruling that Amaral has libelled the McCanns was handed down on 28 April.Going on his previous track record of spinning things out for as long as possible he'll probably leave it until the last minute. After all, there's no real hurry is there?
It's now 17th May.
Amaral has had half his allotted time of 40 days to lodge his appeal.
By my reckoning he's got till roughly the first week in June to get his appeal in.
The ruling never stated that Gonçalo Amaral had libelled the McCanns. Get it straight.
An Appellate Court won't tolerate such nonsense, that's the difference.
McCanns 'won' on a technicality, hardly justification for claiming they have in any way been vindicated! OR absolved in Maddies disappearance. I also wonder if the Jiudge made the claim so high in order that Amaral could appeal.
McCanns 'won' on a technicality, hardly justification for claiming they have in any way been vindicated! OR absolved in Maddies disappearance. I also wonder if the Jiudge made the claim so high in order that Amaral could appeal.
What "technicality" are you referring to?
McCanns 'won' on a technicality, hardly justification for claiming they have in any way been vindicated! OR absolved in Maddies disappearance. I also wonder if the Jiudge made the claim so high in order that Amaral could appeal.
Is, maybe, the header of this thread a little misleading?
He has confirmed he will apply for permission to appeal.
Hasn't he?
I don't know - it seems so, but it is third party comment.
He has the right to appeal. And has either until the 28th May or the 8th June to lodge his appeal for the court to consider.
8(0(* Nothing at all to say about Mr Amaral's appeal?
What I mean is that he doesn't have an automatic right to consider that his request to appeal will be accepted.
But he does have an automatic right to lodge the request.
Is that correct?
I don't think anyone is worrying Stephen.
Just wondering which reason Amaral will choose this time to try to spin out the time. ?{)(**
"I am entitled to 40 days so I will use 40 days"; sounds reasonable to me.
Spinning it out would be if he asked for an extension to time. I don't suppose we will be too surprised if that happens. For someone down on his uppers he don't seem too perturbed about when his accounts will be "de-sequestered".
"I am entitled to 40 days so I will use 40 days"; sounds reasonable to me.
Spinning it out would be if he asked for an extension to time. I don't suppose we will be too surprised if that happens. For someone down on his uppers he don't seem too perturbed about when his accounts will be "de-sequestered".
Well JP, Whatever his reason he is entitled to ask for more time. McCanns 'won' on a technicality, hardly justification for claiming they have in any way been vindicated! OR absolved in Maddies disappearance. I also wonder if the Jiudge made the claim so high in order that Amaral could appeal.
"I am entitled to 40 days so I will use 40 days"; sounds reasonable to me.
Spinning it out would be if he asked for an extension to time. I don't suppose we will be too surprised if that happens. For someone down on his uppers he don't seem too perturbed about when his accounts will be "de-sequestered".
If that should be the case (and he does have form for trying to delay things) then he may well find its too late.
I wouldn't imagine the Appeal Court would be too happy with proceedings being dragged out any longer than needs be ... as JP has pointed out because it is unfair to the successful litigants ... a delay may not be considered ... so it may be 'go for it or forget it'.
What would be helpful is to specify a date by which the appeal must be submitted, rather than a time-frame.
That removes uncertainty about weekends, bank holidays and all the rest, and makes absolutely clear what must be done and when by.
The time runs from the date of the decision by the court, not from the date the ruling is published. So the appeal must be filed by 28th May. Or if 40 days then the 40 days falls on the 7th June, so Amaral will have until close of business on the 8th June.
I think you missed the point.
If 40 days is allowed to make a submission then there is no legitimate beef against all of the allotted time being used and no reasonable accusation of spinning it out can be made. What do you think "you have 40 days from "x date" to make your submission" means?
Oh I doubt he will take it up the line ... after all he must be desperate to get back into Court to have this horrible mistake sorted out to his satisfaction.
?>)()<
Oh I doubt he will take it up the line ... after all he must be desperate to get back into Court to have this horrible mistake sorted out to his satisfaction.
?>)()<
Soooo....
Has it been confirmed that he has announced that he's appealing?
I presume so.
Sixty-something pages later...
Next question: based on which arguments of law or fact?
Soooo....
Has it been confirmed that he has announced that he's appealing?
I presume so.
Sixty-something pages later...
Next question: based on which arguments of law or fact?
What is he waiting for? It is now 3 weeks, since his announcement!
Don't know why he should be searching for a lawyer, isn't his daughter one? £4%4£ I'm sure she would give him a discount or even a Pro bono.
Almost there;
£20,025 of £25k
Almost there;I thought he needed 40 grand?
£20,025 of £25k
I thought he needed 40 grand?
Excellent news.
Did you?
Excellent news.
Did you?Yes, it was a figure mooted on here a few weeks back I thought - I could be mistaken of course.... Anyway, I'd just like to add my voice of congratulation and delight at this heart-warming news... 8)--))
That's really good news. I eventually had a look at the page, thought that many many people must have donated to reach that amount, as most donations were for £5 and £10 and thereabouts. All good IMO, as I wasn't personally convinced the Mccanns had a strong, moral, or believable case or that the damages awarded to them for his writing his book were fair by any stretch. Onwards and upwards for his appeal.
Interesting.Hang on a sec...I thought this appeal process could drag on for years...? Surely £10k isn't going to cover years more legal costs?
Thoughts on the subject:
To put together an appeal should not cost very much - rough estimate £10k.
Court fees will need to be paid on top of this but again Portuguese court fees are fairly modest - a few hundred euros.
I am therefore assuming that the bulk of the money will be required to settle outstanding bills from the original action, or the court will require a deposit.
Excellent news.
That's really good news. I eventually had a look at the page, thought that many many people must have donated to reach that amount, as most donations were for £5 and £10 and thereabouts. All good IMO, as I wasn't personally convinced the Mccanns had a strong, moral, or believable case or that the damages awarded to them for his writing his book were fair by any stretch. Onwards and upwards for his appeal.Approximately 1000 unique individuals have contributed to the fund so far. 'Unique' in both senses of the word... @)(++(*
Approximately 1000 unique individuals have contributed to the fund so far. 'Unique' in both senses of the word... @)(++(*
That's really good news. I eventually had a look at the page, thought that many many people must have donated to reach that amount, as most donations were for £5 and £10 and thereabouts. All good IMO, as I wasn't personally convinced the Mccanns had a strong, moral, or believable case or that the damages awarded to them for his writing his book were fair by any stretch. Onwards and upwards for his appeal.
Of course, he might just stumble into a travel agent & buy a one-way ticket to the Maldives rather than appeal.
As I understand it he doesn't have access to any of the money raised for his legal defense.
Many are repeat donations from the same people ... I'm not knocking that if it is what people really want to do with their money ... and it doesn't surprise me in the slightest that you cannot recognise the morals of the case ... the Portuguese Court did and the reasons given will probably dictate the outcome of an appeal should one be allowed.How do you know they are repeat donations? Why would anyone donate then send somemore?
How do you know they are repeat donations? Why would anyone donate then send somemore?Weird isn't it? But I can assure you they are - some peopl have donated more than half a dozen times each, it helps to give the impression that Amaral has more support than he actually has. So - weird, and a bit pathetic really.
And what do you mean by it doesn't surprise you in the slightest that I cant recognise the morals of the case? You have a nerve.
Which morals did the Portuguese Court recognise? What did they say about these?
As for "the judgement will probably dictate the outcome of an appeal", you cant know that, if anyone did,there would be no costly appeals and secondly the judgement of a lower court in banning his book a few years ago was overturned, so dont count your chickens I would say
It seems he has far more than enough already to launch his appeal, so what will the balance be used for?
That there are those who claim to have made numerous donations to Mr Amaral's appeal fund is indisputable ... that there are those who have pledged weekly or other interval timed small donations to Mr Amaral's appeal fund is indisputable also ... why you appear to take umbrage to the fact is incomprehensibleProbably because it means that instead of 1000 supporters, there are less but making repeat donations. Some folk are sensitive about that sort of thing being pointed out.
Probably because it means that instead of 1000 supporters, there are less but making repeat donations. Some folk are sensitive about that sort of thing being pointed out.
I know of one who has donated three times if that helps draw a more precise picture.
It matters not that people are collecting for him. I'm not even sure that in the unlikely event his appeal is successful it really matters; for the simple reason that the times in Portugal are definitely changing and the spotlight shone by Madeleine McCann's case may have played a part in hastening that.
The important thing now is that Madeleine McCann is being actively looked for not by private investigators ~ but by the police forces of two countries.
In the UK we have the Official Secrets Act which binds all police officers to secrecy, the Portuguese must have something similar?
Apparently, but according to Amaral, it's just an administrative detail...
I think that 'administrative detail' might be one of the stumbling blocks he may have as an appellant ... the other being his denial of the McCanns' right to the presumption of innocence.
Since these were the two areas for which the judge ruled in the favour of the Drs McCann I can't see what leeway there is to appeal the decision except to contest the amount of the award made against him ... which is actually a bit of an irrelevance.
I think that 'administrative detail' might be one of the stumbling blocks he may have as an appellant ... the other being his denial of the McCanns' right to the presumption of innocence.
Since these were the two areas for which the judge ruled in the favour of the Drs McCann I can't see what leeway there is to appeal the decision except to contest the amount of the award made against him ... which is actually a bit of an irrelevance.
There are appeals in this country based on the magistrates or judges having made a judgement for reasons outwith their authority. It could conceivably be that.
There are appeals in this country based on the magistrates or judges having made a judgement for reasons outwith their authority. It could conceivably be that.
That there are those who claim to have made numerous donations to Mr Amaral's appeal fund is indisputable ... that there are those who have pledged weekly or other interval timed small donations to Mr Amaral's appeal fund is indisputable also ... why you appear to take umbrage to the fact is incomprehensible
In the UK we have the Official Secrets Act which binds all police officers to secrecy, the Portuguese must have something similar?
It may be indisputable now, (that a few people have made more than one donationand I have read all the posts today now) it wasn't to me yesterday when I questioned, there is no need to get flummoxed and wonder about comprehensibility, I didn't take "umbrage" to any "facts"either as you put it, just to assertions, so unless you expect people to accept all postings as true, then expect to be questioned.
That's all dear.
I think the point some have taken umbrage to is the fact that once a certain point has been reached the momentum of the appeal relies on repeat donations from the same individuals.
I don't have the problem that some seem to have with that; but it does reveal that Mr Amaral's support has a limit of appx 1,000 vociferous individuals ... as has been seen in numerous petitions et al organised by his supporters' forums.
I doubt he even has half that number in Portugal as the revelations over the years of the lies and propaganda the public were fed sinks in.
Nobody likes being taken for a fool ... and I think the level of the financial support or lack of it from his home turf might reflect that.
We would be able to judge that better if the accounts were published, but I think it is becoming clearer with two collection points, one transparent the other shrouded in secrecy, that the bulk of Mr Amaral's financial support has always come from Britain and that is quite extraordinary.
I never take anything I see at face value ... but if I wish to challenge, I take the trouble to check out my facts first ... pity you do not adhere to the same courtesy.
I truly don't think it will be that ... I think the judge has given no leeway at all to twist and turn ... the simplicity of the ruling has left no hostage to fortune. She seems to be a pretty sharp lady, which is only to be expected.
I don't find it extraordinary that Amaral has British supporters, financial or otherwise. We don't know the extent of support he has in Portugal, so nothing can be gained by speculating. According to Shining there is little or no support in Praia da Luz for the McCanns, at any rate. In Britain Amaral seems to enjoy more support than certain others, and perhaps people should consider why that is. Not everyone who thinks he has been badly used can be dismissed as stupid, surely?
I don't find it extraordinary that Amaral has British supporters, financial or otherwise. We don't know the extent of support he has in Portugal, so nothing can be gained by speculating. According to Shining there is little or no support in Praia da Luz for the McCanns, at any rate. In Britain Amaral seems to enjoy more support than certain others, and perhaps people should consider why that is. Not everyone who thinks he has been badly used can be dismissed as stupid, surely?
What you call "simplicity" others call a "dog's dinner" of a ruling. You seem to overlook the fact that the verdict in February 2010 on the injunction carried more or less the same arguments as in this ruling and that verdict was overturned in a scathing "acórdão" by the Tribunal da Relação de Lisboa in October 2010.
Then we shall just have to content ourselves to see if the "dogs dinner" is allowed to be challenged by appeal ... I will be surprised if it is overturned should an appeal be allowed ... then I can see beauty in simplicity.
Of course you would say that.
You back the mccanns 100%.
Now if the situation was reversed and rthe mccanns were making the appeal &%+((£
Granted that some just might be naive or misled.
So people who donate to Amaral's legal defence fund are either stupid, naive or mislead? I think you are underestimating the intelligence of the British.
So people who donate to Amaral's legal defence fund are either stupid, naive or mislead? I think you are underestimating the intelligence of the British.
I think misled and naïve are fair comments...and certainly on the whole the more intelligent can see through the lies and myths and support the mccanns
I think misled and naïve are fair comments...and certainly on the whole the more intelligent can see through the lies and myths and support the mccanns
The court, not Mr Amaral, will decide whether or not he can appeal.
ETA: If they decide he can't, the McCanns will be outright winners at first instance.
There is far too much at stake here for him to be denied an appeal. A judgement exceeding €500k is unprecedented in Portugal so that alone will allow one.
There is far too much at stake here for him to be denied an appeal. A judgement exceeding €500k is unprecedented in Portugal so that alone will allow one.
I think that may be the single issue which might be subject to consideration ... the reduction of the award.
However the Judge made it in full consideration of the financial history and assets of the defendant ... including the receipts from the book he wrote cashing in on his theories, so it is not a given that an appeal would be allowed on those grounds.
I think the unprecedented amount of the award reflects the unprecedented damage inflicted ... so interesting what will be said in an appeal court in justification from both sides ... won't be long now till we find out if an appeal will happen.
There is far too much at stake here for him to be denied an appeal. A judgement exceeding €500k is unprecedented in Portugal so that alone will allow one.
The judges decision is based on the premise that the McCanns are totally innocent. If that particular wall eventually crumbles then that is a very different ball game.
I think that may be the single issue which might be subject to consideration ... the reduction of the award.
However the Judge made it in full consideration of the financial history and assets of the defendant ... including the receipts from the book he wrote cashing in on his theories, so it is not a given that an appeal would be allowed on those grounds.
I think the unprecedented amount of the award reflects the unprecedented damage inflicted ... so interesting what will be said in an appeal court in justification from both sides ... won't be long now till we find out if an appeal will happen.
Very well.
The court, not Mr Amaral, will decide whether or not he can appeal.
ETA: If they decide he can't, the McCanns will be outright winners at first instance.
But there are these inconvenient facts (for Mr Amaral) that he accuses them of responsibility for the 'death' of their daughter and those no evidence she's dead, let alone who was responsible
He accuses them of launching a fraudulent fund in their (dead!) daughter's name and the accounts of the fund are in apple-pie order
He alleges that Mark Harrison changed the enquiry to one for a little girl assumed dead and her remains hidden in the vicinity of PdL and Mark Harrison did no such thing (including that he did NOT say Madeleine was 'buried' anywhere.
Amaral insists Eddie "smelt death" all over the place and neither Harrison nor Grime said any such thing
Amaral accuses Kate of sacking a Leicester Police Liaison officer and those no evidence she did.
And so it rolls, and rolls and rolls ....
As one of the defendants at the trial said, Amaral's book is largely made up.
What price his chances of an appeal?
I think that may be the single issue which might be subject to consideration ... the reduction of the award.
However the Judge made it in full consideration of the financial history and assets of the defendant ... including the receipts from the book he wrote cashing in on his theories, so it is not a given that an appeal would be allowed on those grounds.
I think the unprecedented amount of the award reflects the unprecedented damage inflicted ... so interesting what will be said in an appeal court in justification from both sides ... won't be long now till we find out if an appeal will happen.
Damages? The McCanns suffered no damages from that book as confirmed by the Tribunal da Relação de Lisboa in October 2010! Damages is when a husband and son lose their wife and mother, who was beaten to death in her office by the ex-husband of her client, who did not want to pay alimony. The two received € 160.000,-- as compensation. So let me tell you that € 500.000,-- is obscene for two parents who neglected and ignored their children during the entire holiday and who are ultimately responsible for what happened, not only to their daughter but to others.
Damages? The McCanns suffered no damages from that book as confirmed by the Tribunal da Relação de Lisboa in October 2010! Damages is when a husband and son lose their wife and mother, who was beaten to death in her office by the ex-husband of her client, who did not want to pay alimony. The two received € 160.000,-- as compensation. So let me tell you that € 500.000,-- is obscene for two parents who neglected and ignored their children during the entire holiday and who are ultimately responsible for what happened, not only to their daughter but to others.
it is what the Portuguese judge awarded...tough...I think it's totally justified and the judge agrees with me
it is what the Portuguese judge awarded...tough...I think it's totally justified and the judge agrees with me
The amount is in no way justified. Furthermore, the judge deemed that Gonçalo Amaral did not have the right to write the book as a retired policeman and awarded the parents the proceeds from the book as punishment and in no way as damages.
The amount is in no way justified. Furthermore, the judge deemed that Gonçalo Amaral did not have the right to write the book as a retired policeman and awarded the parents the proceeds from the book as punishment and in no way as damages.
Damages? The McCanns suffered no damages from that book as confirmed by the Tribunal da Relação de Lisboa in October 2010! Damages is when a husband and son lose their wife and mother, who was beaten to death in her office by the ex-husband of her client, who did not want to pay alimony. The two received € 160.000,-- as compensation. So let me tell you that € 500.000,-- is obscene for two parents who neglected and ignored their children during the entire holiday and who are ultimately responsible for what happened, not only to their daughter but to others.
The amount is in no way justified. Furthermore, the judge deemed that Gonçalo Amaral did not have the right to write the book as a retired policeman and awarded the parents the proceeds from the book as punishment and in no way as damages.
The judge stated that his book was based on the police files and was factual!
This has already been explained FGS! The judge of the first instance will consider his appeal and if she maintains her verdict (she does have the possibility of changing it), she then sends the appeal on to the Tribunal da Relação. She cannot stop the procedure if she doesn't agree with the appellant's arguments.
That's not exactly what she said.
She said that the "facts" in the book were IN THE MAIN contained within the files (i.e. not all). She passed no judgement as to whether the "facts" were truthful or not - just that many of the "facts" did indeed appear in the "partial" files, but that establishing the truthfulness was beyond her remit.
Logically, if someone chooses to select only certain aspects of WWII, clearly a biased version of events could present how Hitler won the war. If you really choose only selected documents, I expect that it's quite feasible to make readers believe that the Holocaust never happened - it was all just unpleasant propaganda to discredit the Führer.
The facts are in the files and they are facts, Gonçalo Amaral did not invent "facts". What the judge said was that it was not within her remit to investigate the disappearance.
amaral based his book on the files no problem...then he added his own...big problem .....where in the files does it say there is proof maddie died in the apartment
amaral based his book on the files no problem...then he added his own...big problem .....where in the files does it say there is proof maddie died in the apartment
The problem is that you people say that Gonçalo Amaral has said or written things that he hasn't done. He never said in his book that there was proof that Madeleine died in the apartment. He only repeated the preliminary report by Tavares de Almeida and what the police thought when the dogs alerted. In the book he describes the investigation without giving his personal opinion as to what happened.
The problem is that you people say that Gonçalo Amaral has said or written things that he hasn't done. He never said in his book that there was proof that Madeleine died in the apartment. He only repeated the preliminary report by Tavares de Almeida and what the police thought when the dogs alerted. In the book he describes the investigation without giving his personal opinion as to what happened.
The facts are in the files and they are facts, Gonçalo Amaral did not invent "facts". What the judge said was that it was not within her remit to investigate the disappearance.
The problem is that you people say that Gonçalo Amaral has said or written things that he hasn't done. He never said in his book that there was proof that Madeleine died in the apartment. He only repeated the preliminary report by Tavares de Almeida and what the police thought when the dogs alerted. In the book he describes the investigation without giving his personal opinion as to what happened.
The facts are in the files and they are facts, Gonçalo Amaral did not invent "facts". What the judge said was that it was not within her remit to investigate the disappearance.
The problem is that you people say that Gonçalo Amaral has said or written things that he hasn't done. He never said in his book that there was proof that Madeleine died in the apartment. He only repeated the preliminary report by Tavares de Almeida and what the police thought when the dogs alerted. In the book he describes the investigation without giving his personal opinion as to what happened.
What about in his docu drama?How did he actually go on to "prove" this?
My name is Goncalo Amaral and I was a police investigator for the Judiciary Police for 27 years. I co-ordinated the investigation of the disappearance of Madeleine McCann on the 3rd of May 2007. During the next 50 minutes I will PROVE that the child was not abducted and that she died in the holiday apartment in Praia da Luz. Discover all the truth about what happened that day. A death that many want to cover up.
I think the point some have taken umbrage to is the fact that once a certain point has been reached the momentum of the appeal relies on repeat donations from the same individuals.
I don't have the problem that some seem to have with that; but it does reveal that Mr Amaral's support has a limit of appx 1,000 vociferous individuals ... as has been seen in numerous petitions et al organised by his supporters' forums.
I doubt he even has half that number in Portugal as the revelations over the years of the lies and propaganda the public were fed sinks in.
Nobody likes being taken for a fool ... and I think the level of the financial support or lack of it from his home turf might reflect that.
We would be able to judge that better if the accounts were published, but I think it is becoming clearer with two collection points, one transparent the other shrouded in secrecy, that the bulk of Mr Amaral's financial support has always come from Britain and that is quite extraordinary.
I never take anything I see at face value ... but if I wish to challenge, I take the trouble to check out my facts first ... pity you do not adhere to the same courtesy.
So, you would have expected me to go and read all the thousands of messages on the donation page before daring to ask you to back up your statements? Wow!
I expect you to post statements which can be substantiated but if you are content to post on subjects you admit to knowing nothing about ... expect to be challenged on them when you get them seriously wrong.
You also have it wrong when you say thousands have contributed to Mr Amaral's appeal fund ... at my last count 1266 donations had been made ... and as you belatedly acknowledge, many of the contributions are from multiple doners some of whom have pledged to continue on a weekly basis.
I see why it annoys you ... but don't take it out on me if the truth of the lie is being revealed so succinctly ... Mr Amaral's support does not number in the thousands ... but it is interesting seeing them putting their money where their mouth is and reading some of that as well.
I expect you to post statements which can be substantiated but if you are content to post on subjects you admit to knowing nothing about ... expect to be challenged on them when you get them seriously wrong.
You also have it wrong when you say thousands have contributed to Mr Amaral's appeal fund ... at my last count 1266 donations had been made ... and as you belatedly acknowledge, many of the contributions are from multiple doners some of whom have pledged to continue on a weekly basis.
I see why it annoys you ... but don't take it out on me if the truth of the lie is being revealed so succinctly ... Mr Amaral's support does not number in the thousands ... but it is interesting seeing them putting their money where their mouth is and reading some of that as well.
It doesn't matter how many as long he receives enough dosh to lodge with his appeal documents. Of course with a totaliser running he can legitimately spin it out til 40 days. Well honest guv I didn't have the dosh look at the "go fund me" totaliser.`
As for multiple Doners I have them on a Thursday night after multiple scoops of Stella's Tortoise wiv me mates innit.
This discussion is hilarious...so many being annoyed by donations to a defense fund of 20kwhen the Mccanns have had over 3 million to a fund which in their own words they can use as they like and which in fact has been used for many more purposes than directly searching! Pathetic
This discussion is hilarious...so many being annoyed by donations to a defense fund of 20kwhen the Mccanns have had over 3 million to a fund which in their own words they can use as they like and which in fact has been used for many more purposes than directly searching! Pathetic
At the last count the fund stood at £20,550 ... yet again you are guilty of making an unsubstantiated statement ... please provide evidence that "so many are annoyed" ... should be easy enough to back up if there is any truth in it.
Was there ever any confirmation of the rumour that there had been an attempt to settle by either party prior to the trial?
Has Amaral appealed yet?
Has Amaral appealed yet?
Probably not, there are 12 days remaining.12 working days or 12 days in total?
This is interesting:
court proceedings in Portugal:
http://www.worldservicesgroup.com/publications.asp?action=article&artid=2914
12 working days or 12 days in total?
Thanks, ferryman. Certainly gives an idea why the size of the damages came as such a blow as well as an understanding of the Judge's discretion on the evidence presented ... I've bookmarked it to read properly when I've got time.
Calender days.
I believe they do hold Court cases on Saturdays, in Portugal, Ferryman.
Idle curiosity (which I don't expect to be satisfied for a while!) as to whether Amaral has lodged his appeal on points of law.
If the challenge is on proven facts then he probably has until the 9th June.
Unless his lawyers secretary gets bird flu, of course. 8((()*/
Are you sure that the deadline is based on calendar days, as opposed to working days in a civil case? Not that it makes much difference in the general scheme of how long this has been going on for.
Are you sure that the deadline is based on calendar days, as opposed to working days in a civil case? Not that it makes much difference in the general scheme of how long this has been going on for.
When the time limit for carrying out a procedural act ends on a day when the courts are closed, the period is extended to the next working day (Article 144 of the Code of Civil Procedure).
So 8th June, not 9th as I said above, unless this court works on a Saturday as DCI says ...
Idle curiosity (which I don't expect to be satisfied for a while!) as to whether Amaral has lodged his appeal on points of law.OFF TOPIC
If the challenge is on proven facts then he probably has until the 9th June.
Unless his lawyers secretary gets bird flu, of course. 8((()*/
OFF TOPIC
Or ManFlu depending on the secretary's gender ?{)(**
Non PC to the last. ?>)()<
http://portugalresident.com/madeleine-libel-hearing-is-adjourned-as-lawyer-has-swine-flu
Last time it was swine flu.
On the basis that he can't pull that particular stunt again I was gently suggesting an alternative.
Who mentioned being PC by the way?
Whichever the day, how would you assess Amaral's chances of lodging grounds of an appeal the judge will deem satisfactory, JP?
The grounds upon which the McCanns lawyers approached the case, and the Judge's application of the law, would seem to be correct, and according to the judgement leave very little room.
I think he would struggle to challenge the facts proven.
So any appeal will have to be on points of law, and they will have to be pretty fundamental. At the moment I cant think of one.
Thanks, JP.
Do we know if Amaral has legal representation?
Presumably the bulk of the money in the fund would go to paying his legal fees?
Does Mr Amaral have a website or blog in which he gives updates to his followers?
Does Mr Amaral have a website or blog in which he gives updates to his followers?
This blog
www.pjga.blogspot.co.uk/ (http://www.pjga.blogspot.co.uk/)
Just saw this on the Amazon site................
'Well, Gezza & Katie (and their handful of ######## #######) have just been handed a very nice little "something to chew on for the weekend" over at gofundme:
'£1,000 MPS - 21 mins ago MPS from an anonymous but very large group of Brit. police officers, outraged at the way in which an SIO has been treated. This strikes at the very basis of the way investigations whould be conducted, "Without Fear or Favour, Malice or ill will". The world can clearly see where the malice and ill-will are in this case.'
http://www.gofundme.com/Legal-DefencePJGA '
Mmmm. 8((()*/
Thanks to this very generous gift of a grand the Defence Fund has now reached a very useful £23,150 from 1,382 donations. The msm must be finding it increasingly difficult to ignore this phenomena and it is going to be illuminating to see which tabloid rag will break the news first, when the initial target is achieved
Do you suppose that, because that's what it says on the site, that's what has actually happened?
Do you suppose that, because the mccanns said it was an abduction, that's what has actually happened ?
and do you really believe all police officers believe the mccanns 'story' ? @)(++(* @)(++(* @)(++(*
Do you suppose that, because the mccanns said it was an abduction, that's what has actually happened ?
and do you really believe all police officers believe the mccanns 'story' ? @)(++(* @)(++(* @)(++(*
I leave it to senile and incompetent Portuguese judges who find in favour of the McCanns to believe things like that .
Oh dear, is that the best you can do ?
How many judges was that ferryman ?
Appeal pending of course. 8**8:/:
Appeal to be applied for
And approved or denied.
If denied, the McCanns will be outright winners at first instance.
We'll see ...
So "a very large group" of British policeman have donated £1000 to Ammy's* Fund have they?
Is that 1000 policemen donating £1 each then?
*That was especially for Alice.
Appeal to be applied for
And approved or denied.
If denied, the McCanns will be outright winners at first instance.
We'll see ...
How many times do we have to explain how appeals work before you understand? The appeal goes to the first instance judge. If she doesn't accept the arguments, she then sends it up to the appeals court. There is no way that the appeal can stop in the first instance if the appellant fulfills the formalities of filing within the time limit, paying the respective court costs, being the legitimate person to appeal and the case falling under the types which can be appealed (which is the case here). Do you understand now?
Well, among those who appear to have the wrong end of the stick is Jean-Pierre.
I asked him this:
Whichever the day, how would you assess Amaral's chances of lodging grounds of an appeal the judge will deem satisfactory, JP?
He replied:
The grounds upon which the McCanns lawyers approached the case, and the Judge's application of the law, would seem to be correct, and according to the judgement leave very little room.
I think he would struggle to challenge the facts proven.
So any appeal will have to be on points of law, and they will have to be pretty fundamental. At the moment I cant think of one.
So JP doesn't appear to take it as read that grounds of an appeal will be automatically accepted (and if they are not, the McCanns will be outright winners at first instance)!
You do.
Which of you is right?
Well, among those who appear to have the wrong end of the stick is Jean-Pierre.
I asked him this:
Whichever the day, how would you assess Amaral's chances of lodging grounds of an appeal the judge will deem satisfactory, JP?
He replied:
The grounds upon which the McCanns lawyers approached the case, and the Judge's application of the law, would seem to be correct, and according to the judgement leave very little room.
I think he would struggle to challenge the facts proven.
So any appeal will have to be on points of law, and they will have to be pretty fundamental. At the moment I cant think of one.
So JP doesn't appear to take it as read that grounds of an appeal will be automatically accepted (and if they are not, the McCanns will be outright winners at first instance)!
You do.
Which of you is right?
So does Leanne Baulch have a plan 'B' for what to do with all that money in the 'Goncalo' fund if Amaral is denied leave to appeal?
I gather the money is in the form of an outright gift, so there is no obligation to refund it.
But something will have to be done with it.
What?
Just saw this on the Amazon site................
'Well, Gezza & Katie (and their handful of ######## #######) have just been handed a very nice little "something to chew on for the weekend" over at gofundme:
'£1,000 MPS - 21 mins ago MPS from an anonymous but very large group of Brit. police officers, outraged at the way in which an SIO has been treated. This strikes at the very basis of the way investigations whould be conducted, "Without Fear or Favour, Malice or ill will". The world can clearly see where the malice and ill-will are in this case.'
http://www.gofundme.com/Legal-DefencePJGA '
Mmmm. 8((()*/
Thanks to this very generous gift of a grand the Defence Fund has now reached a very useful £23,150 from 1,382 donations. The msm must be finding it increasingly difficult to ignore this phenomena and it is going to be illuminating to see which tabloid rag will break the news first, when the initial target is achieved
That's not the feedback I am getting from lawyers practising in Portugal. Although having some sympathy with the litigants, they feel that the judgement was politically motivated at a time of great judicial changes in the country.
The level of the judgement alone is unprecedented in Portugal and that alone would attract an automatic referral by a judge to the appeal court and higher.
The other point which appears to be coming across is that the parents appear to being rewarded for negligence. That is something I personally don't necessarily agree with but is worth mentioning all the same.
So does Leanne Baulch have a plan 'B' for what to do with all that money in the 'Goncalo' fund if Amaral is denied leave to appeal?
I gather the money is in the form of an outright gift, so there is no obligation to refund it.
But something will have to be done with it.
What?
Amaral did tell rather a lot of (proven!) lies in his book.
And the Portuguese prosecutors dismissed 'negligence' (promulgated enthusiastically by Amaral in his latest public utterances).
Aside from the odd departure from reality, the problem with Gonçalo Amaral's book is that his underlying thesis has not been proven or disproven. He claims the parents are guilty of a coverup following an accidental death but this has never been successfully challenged.
I believe the prosecutors considered then dismissed the crime of intentional neglect which is a different issue to simple negligence.
Gonçalo Amaral cannot be denied leave to appeal!!!!!!! I believe that Jean-Pierre is talking about how the Appeals court will appreciate GA's arguments, not what the first instance judge can do. One thing she cannot do is not to send the appeal to a higher court, no matter whether she agrees or not with the appellant's arguments.
If 'simple negligence' doesn't come under a legal remit, but is just a subjective personal judgement, then it is unlikely to have bearing or relevance upon the outcome of an appeal ....
It could have if it is argued that their simple negligence towards their child was a contributing factor. I don't believe Judge Castro referred to this issue in her extensive judgement.
If you are right (and I don't think you are!) then it works very differently from the way it works in England.
And your interpretation of the way it works in Portugal seems to defy logic.
What is the point of anyone being asked to adjudicate an appeal if the appeal (absoulutely!) cannot be denied?
It is not my interpretation, it is the law here. So if it is different from the way it works in England, so be it.
Let me say this once more. The first instance judge can deny the appeal and not change her verdict, but she is then obliged to send the appeal to the higher court, the Tribunal da Relação. The appeal cannot stop in her lap, that would be a denial of justice.
I don't think that Montclair and Jean-Pierre are really at odds. My understanding is that the first instance judge has to check that the formalities have been complied with (which Montclair has mentioned) and that the appeal is more than a scrawled note of unrelated gibberish. As Jean-Pierre has said, that saves time for the next court up.
If Montclair is correct that he applied for 40 days, then that would presumably mean that he intended to contest legal and factual elements.
He is entitled to challenge both and no doubt he'll try.
His recent media interviews may offer an indication of what his points are likely to be.
As far as I can make it out, he has abandoned theMcCannsdunsomethingdreadfultoMadeleineandcovereditup (a central theme of his book, film and interviews) and reverted to TheMcCannsneglectedtheirdaughterandthat'swhyshe'sdead! (also rejected by the prosecutors).
That ought to bode ill for Amaral's prospects (of being granted an appeal!).
Your getting desperate ferryman.
What will you do if Amaral wins the appeal and the mccanns get zip ?
We're debating whether Amaral will be granted an appeal.
Since he appears to have abandoned a central tenet and theme of his book, that ought to bode ill for his chances.
We're debating whether Amaral will be granted an appeal.
Since he appears to have abandoned a central tenet and theme of his book, that ought to bode ill for his chances.
We shall see in due course.
We're debating whether Amaral will be granted an appeal.
Since he appears to have abandoned a central tenet and theme of his book, that ought to bode ill for his chances.
Indeed.
I take it the appeal has not been submitted yet?
Worried?
Who says it does seem he will get an appeal?
If she is obliged to send the appeal to the second court, what would be the point in her denying the appeal?
In that instance, she would, effectively, be denying, then allowing, the appeal, making a nonsense of her ever being asked to adjudicate an appeal in the first place.
What exactly is the point of the adjudication?
The appellant appeals to the first instance to give the judge an opportunity to change her verdict. If she does not want to change her verdict after reading his arguments, then she is obliged to send the appeal to the higher court. What do you think happened when the judge upheld the book ban in February 2010? All the defendants appealed to the first instance judge, who obviously did not change her verdict, and then she sent their appeals on to the Tribunal da Relação, as required by law, which then overturned the first judgement.
So an appeal followed by an appeal?
No I don't go with that at all ...
What you are suggesting is that the judge who ruled in first instance is empowered to overrule her initial ruling, which is clearly wrong.
So there is no point in adjudication?
Adjudication? As far as I can work out, it's simply a matter of ensuring that the formalities, including relevant paperwork, are done properly.
What the next court may make of whatever arguments are presented remains to be seen.
So you are suggesting that there is no actual appeal: just a rubber-stamping exercise before proceedings in the next court up are commenced?
No. I don't think that's right either.
It certainly isn't the impression I get from JP's posts.
So you are suggesting that there is no actual appeal: just a rubber-stamping exercise before proceedings in the next court up are commenced?
No. I don't think that's right either.
It certainly isn't the impression I get from JP's posts.
The first instance court will then decide whether the appeal should be accepted. If it is accepted, the case is sent to the higher court.
So there it is.
The first instance court has power to reject an appeal ...
8. Appeal
8.1 Grounds for appeal
The general rule is that a party may appeal to the court of second instance (“Tribunal da Relação”) when the value of the lawsuit is higher than EUR5,000 and the decision is unfavourable to the appealing party in an amount higher than EUR2,500.01 (Cf. Article 629 of the CPC). The court of second instance decides both on legal and factual issues.
A party may appeal to the Supreme Court when the value of the lawsuit is higher than EUR30,000 and the decision is unfavourable to the appealing party in an amount higher than EUR15,000.01.
The Supreme Court only rules on legal issues and, in most cases, cannot revoke the second instance judgment concerning the proven facts.
In most cases the parties cannot move to the Supreme Court if the first and the second instance courts have issued identical decisions with similar grounds.
The general rule is that the appeal does not suspend the proceedings unless the appealing party pays a deposit or presents a bank guarantee.
8.2 Time limits and triggering events
The general rule is that the appealing party has 30 days to appeal to the higher court in the event that the appeal is to the court of second instance (Cf. Article 638 of the CPC). If the appeal includes the impeachment of the proven facts through a review of the recorded witnesses or party statements, then the appealing party has 40 days to appeal.
However, in some specific cases (e.g. freezing orders) the appealing party has only 15 days to appeal.
The defendant in the appeal always has the same term to present an answer.
The first instance court will then decide whether the appeal should be accepted. If it is accepted, the case is sent to the higher court.
On the basis of historic evidence, it is estimated that the second instance courts take on average between six months and one year to decide an appeal, and that the Supreme Court will take on average three to six months to issue a final decision.
http://www.chambersandpartners.com/guide/practice-guides/location/241/6617/1422-200
The first instance court will then decide whether the appeal should be accepted. If it is accepted, the case is sent to the higher court.
So there it is.
The first instance court has power to reject an appeal ...
Yes, it does, but the grounds for doing so are limited.
Yes, it does, but the grounds for doing so are limited.
How about grounds that the appellant (in the appeal!) has falsely accused the victors of the first round of responsibility for the death of their daughter, covering up the 'fact' of her death, fabricating an 'abduction' and launching a fraudulent 'appeal' in their (dead) daughter's name?
Or of grievously misrepresenting the positions of key English detectives in the (shelved) investigation?
And I think it may be a mistake to suppose that all that is not in the judgment.
I don't think we see the full judgment on line.
I think that beneath the headline that Amaral's book caused the McCanns anxiety (proved!) is a wealth of information explaining why.
How about grounds that the appellant (in the appeal!) has falsely accused the victors of the first round of responsibility for the death of their daughter, covering up the 'fact' of her death, fabricating an 'abduction' and launching a fraudulent 'appeal' in their (dead) daughter's name?
Or of grievously misrepresenting the positions of key English detectives in the (shelved) investigation?
And I think it may be a mistake to suppose that all that is not in the judgment.
I don't think we see the full judgment on line.
I think that beneath the headline that Amaral's book caused the McCanns anxiety (proved!) is a wealth of information explaining why.
This is the reference I was given by a Portuguese lawyer:
No prazo de 30 dias, o Recorrente apresenta Recurso da sentença, juntando as motivações do referido recurso, podendo ser apresentadas motivações de direito e/ou de facto. O recurso é apresentado no tribunal a quo (Tribunal de 1.ª instância, que proferiu a Sentença).
O juiz que profere a Sentença, analisa o requerimento e lê as motivações. Se, após as ler, entender que a sua decisão se mantem, analisa os pressupostos de apresentação do recurso:
Se é uma decisão passível de recurso (629.º do CPC)
Se é tempestivo (638.º, n.º 1, do CPC)
Se o recorrente tem legitimidade (631.º)
Se pagou taxa de justiça (7.º/2 Regime das Custas Processuais)
Se os pressupostos estiverem todos cumpridos, o juiz profere despacho de admissão do recurso, em que diz que estão preenchidos todos os pressupostos e que, por isso, os autos (o processo, digamos) deve subir para o tribunal da relação de X (Lisboa, neste caso) e com que efeito sobe (devolutivo ou suspensivo).
Quando o recurso é apenas quanto a matéria de Direito, o recorrente pode requerer que o recurso seja directamente apreciado pelo STJ, sem ter de passar pela Relação - é o que se chama de "recurso per saltum" (art. 678.º do CPC).
Quick translation, although I have done one already:
Within a period of 30 days, the Appellant presents his appeal of the sentence, enclosing the motivations for referred appeal, motivations of law and/or fact can be presented. The appeal is presented in the court a quo (the first instance court, which gave the sentence).
The judge who gave the sentence, analyses the appeal and reads the motivations. If, after having read them, if she feels that her sentence should be maintained, she analyses the requirements for presenting an appeal:
- If the decision is susceptible to appeal (629º of the CPC)
- If it is presented on time (638º, nº1 of the CPC)
- If the appellant has the legitimacy to do so (631º)
- If the justice fee has been paid (7º/2 rules of Processual Code)
If the requirements have been fulfilled, the judge decrees the official notice of appeal, in which she says that all of the requirements have been fulfilled, and that, for this, the act (the process, let's say) must go up to the Tribunal da Relação and with which effect it goes up (devolutive or suspensive).
If the appeal is based only on the matter of Law, the appellant can ask that the appeal be directly appreciated by the Supreme Court of Justice, bypassing the Tribunal da Relação -which is called "recurso per saltum" (article 678º of the CPC)
Reading that then, the appeal goes to the judge who gave the judgement, and she can allow the appeal if she feels that they have successfully refuted her findings. If, on the other hand, she wishes to stand by her findings she checks that everything is in order (timescsale, fees paid, etc.) and passes it up the chain for others to decide.
Well, Amaral and his legal team seem to be running it down to the wire in presenting their appeal.
Let's see what happens when they do.
Reading that then, the appeal goes to the judge who gave the judgement, and she can allow the appeal if she feels that they have successfully refuted her findings. If, on the other hand, she wishes to stand by her findings she checks that everything is in order (timescsale, fees paid, etc.) and passes it up the chain for others to decide.
How do you know that they haven't already submitted the appeal? They aren't obliged to make an announcement to the world.
- If the appellant has the legitimacy to do so (631º)
I would suggest that that provision includes that there must be points of law or facts in the judgment that can legitimately be disputed.
If there are none, he's had it.
And I don't think Amaral can legitimately accuse the McCanns of direct culpability in the demise of their daughter when there's no proof she's dead.
Neither can he legitimately ascribe pejorative (to the the McCanns) comments of key English investigators that were similarly never made.
These points must weigh against Amaral's chances (of being granted an appeal) ....
Ferryman, you just don't want to understand at all! The above point means that the person filing the appeal is the defendant and not someone else.
http://www.gofundme.com/Legal-DefencePJGA
(https://pbs.twimg.com/media/CGQHEVTXEAA8vJd.jpg)
It is correct that the person filing the appeal is the appellant in the appeal. I think there may be some misunderstanding - that person may have been the appellant or the respondent in the original case.
Amaral will need to come up with some grounds for appeal, either challenging proven facts or points of law. Otherwise there is no basis for appeal. This is why it is sent back to the court of first instance - to triage and make sure pointless appeals do not waste the time of the higher courts.
In practice, the bar is quite low, and he will only need to present a skeleton argument at this stage.
Thank you Carana. Interesting.
I think the critical part is article 641, 2 (a) and (b)
I agree that my thoughts do not differ very much from Montclair. If Amaral's legal team are unable to come up with sufficient grounds for appeal to have the case reviewed by the higher court, then they should review their career options.
But as always time will tell.
Appeals have risks too.
Thank you Carana. Interesting.
I think the critical part is article 641, 2 (a) and (b)
I agree that my thoughts do not differ very much from Montclair. If Amaral's legal team are unable to come up with sufficient grounds for appeal to have the case reviewed by the higher court, then they should review their career options.
But as always time will tell.
Appeals have risks too.
An observation from the Goncalo Amaral appeal fund which has now surpassed £24,000 is the amount of criticism which the MSM appear to be receiving over this case.
All views welcome?
What sort of criticism and from who?
References by donators to the fund to the MSM and their failure to tell the truth in respect of many aspects of this case. The MSM are perceived by many to be more interested in selling newspapers than they are in reporting all the facts...but then what's new?
References by donators to the fund to the MSM and their failure to tell the truth in respect of many aspects of this case. The MSM are perceived by many to be more interested in selling newspapers than they are in reporting all the facts...but then what's new?
References by donators to the fund to the MSM and their failure to tell the truth in respect of many aspects of this case. The MSM are perceived by many to be more interested in selling newspapers than they are in reporting all the facts...but then what's new?
In what way is the fact that his alleged millions of supporters worldwide have nearly reached their target of £25k newsworthy in itself (aside perhaps for Natasha Donn of the Portugal Resident)?
LOL
Irony klaxon moment.
What "truth"? Ascertaining the material truth has been left out of the equation and (IMO) is what is causing confusion for people accustomed to an anglophone understanding of what a libel case would involve.
ETA for Admin: wouldn't the fund-raising for his legal defence be better on a separate thread?
Yep.
I'm one that's never understood that.
If matters of truth or untruth are irrelevant, then what is the point of libel laws?
Perhaps JP can explain?
So to be clear, Amaral has lied:
That Mark Harrison turned the investigation into one for a little girl assumed dead when Mark Harrison did no such thing
That Mark Harrison said Madeleine's body was buried in close proximity to PdL when Harrison, explicitly ruled out burial
That Amaral contradicted and corrected Prior on interpretation of the forensic results when Amaral's own misunderstanding of forensics is incompetent.
That Stuart Prior rang the FSS to berate them on the subject of the PJ's powers of arrest (when Prior, almost certainly, did no such thing)
That Eddie 'scented death' all over the place when both Harrison and Grime made plain that no incriminating inferences could be drawn from dog alerts.
That the McCanns launched a fraudulent appeal in their (dead) daughter's name when the accounts are in apple-pie order, and there is still no clue of what happened to Madeleine.
All that and more ....
Yet Amaral will be allowed to appeal?
On what grounds?
So to be clear, Amaral has lied:
That Mark Harrison turned the investigation into one for a little girl assumed dead when Mark Harrison did no such thing
That Mark Harrison said Madeleine's body was buried in close proximity to PdL when Harrison, explicitly ruled out burial
That Amaral contradicted and corrected Prior on interpretation of the forensic results when Amaral's own misunderstanding of forensics is incompetent.
That Stuart Prior rang the FSS to berate them on the subject of the PJ's powers of arrest (when Prior, almost certainly, did no such thing)
That Eddie 'scented death' all over the place when both Harrison and Grime made plain that no incriminating inferences could be drawn from dog alerts.
That the McCanns launched a fraudulent appeal in their (dead) daughter's name when the accounts are in apple-pie order, and there is still no clue of what happened to Madeleine.
All that and more ....
Yet Amaral will be allowed to appeal?
On what grounds?
Its complicated!! But in précis form - Usually truth will be an absolute defence to libel. However, if a statement is made with "malicious intent" then it is intent that can be the pivotal factor and the intent can override the fact.
So in other words, you can get away with untruths that don't have malicious intent.
Is that right?
So to be clear, Amaral has lied:
That Mark Harrison turned the investigation into one for a little girl assumed dead when Mark Harrison did no such thing
That Mark Harrison said Madeleine's body was buried in close proximity to PdL when Harrison, explicitly ruled out burial
That Amaral contradicted and corrected Prior on interpretation of the forensic results when Amaral's own misunderstanding of forensics is incompetent.
That Stuart Prior rang the FSS to berate them on the subject of the PJ's powers of arrest (when Prior, almost certainly, did no such thing)
That Eddie 'scented death' all over the place when both Harrison and Grime made plain that no incriminating inferences could be drawn from dog alerts.
That the McCanns launched a fraudulent appeal in their (dead) daughter's name when the accounts are in apple-pie order, and there is still no clue of what happened to Madeleine.
All that and more ....
Yet Amaral will be allowed to appeal?
On what grounds?
The accounts are in apple-pie order ? The aims of the fund are so broad that the McCanns could use it to take out a contract on Amaral's life and the payment to the hitman could be justified.
Of course he is. The ability to appeal a judgment is one of checks and balances of proper justice system.
But entitled to the assumption that his cited grounds of appeal will be permitted?
So to be clear, Amaral has lied:
That Mark Harrison turned the investigation into one for a little girl assumed dead when Mark Harrison did no such thing
That Mark Harrison said Madeleine's body was buried in close proximity to PdL when Harrison, explicitly ruled out burial
That Amaral contradicted and corrected Prior on interpretation of the forensic results when Amaral's own misunderstanding of forensics is incompetent.
That Stuart Prior rang the FSS to berate them on the subject of the PJ's powers of arrest (when Prior, almost certainly, did no such thing)
That Eddie 'scented death' all over the place when both Harrison and Grime made plain that no incriminating inferences could be drawn from dog alerts.
That the McCanns launched a fraudulent appeal in their (dead) daughter's name when the accounts are in apple-pie order, and there is still no clue of what happened to Madeleine.
All that and more ....
Yet Amaral will be allowed to appeal?
On what grounds?
So to be clear, Amaral has lied:
That Mark Harrison turned the investigation into one for a little girl assumed dead when Mark Harrison did no such thing
That Mark Harrison said Madeleine's body was buried in close proximity to PdL when Harrison, explicitly ruled out burial
That Amaral contradicted and corrected Prior on interpretation of the forensic results when Amaral's own misunderstanding of forensics is incompetent.
That Stuart Prior rang the FSS to berate them on the subject of the PJ's powers of arrest (when Prior, almost certainly, did no such thing)
That Eddie 'scented death' all over the place when both Harrison and Grime made plain that no incriminating inferences could be drawn from dog alerts.
That the McCanns launched a fraudulent appeal in their (dead) daughter's name when the accounts are in apple-pie order, and there is still no clue of what happened to Madeleine.
All that and more ....
Yet Amaral will be allowed to appeal?
On what grounds?
Is it not a fact that officers from Leicestershire Police supported Gonçalo in the death in the apartment theory otherwise why bother to bring in Martin Grime and the dogs?
No, what happened was that Mark Harrison was handed a brief to consider that Madeleine had been murdered, and recommended (freelance!) Martin Grime and his dogs to assist with the investigaton
Nothing to do with Leicestershire Police at all.
On 20.07.2007 I was sent by NPIA to Portugal with the goal of helping the Leicestershire police and the Policia Judiciaria relative to the disappearance of a child, Madeleine McCann, missing since 03.05.07 from Praia da Luz, Algarve, Portugal.
The terms of assistance we agreed to provide were directed by the PJ Regional Director, Guilhermino ENCARNACO after consultation with DI Neil HOLDEN of the Leicestershire Police and myself, the details of which are on page two of the document I authored, titled “Decision Support Document in the Search for Madeleine McCann” dated 23.07.2007 and presented as evidence MH4.
Its complicated!! But in précis form - Usually truth will be an absolute defence to libel. However, if a statement is made with "malicious intent" then it is intent that can be the pivotal factor and the intent can override the fact.
Don't be silly, he was tasked by both Leicestershire Police and the Portuguese Police.
www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/PJ/MARK_HARRISON-RIGATORY.htm
Don't be silly, he was tasked by both Leicestershire Police and the Portuguese Police.
www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/PJ/MARK_HARRISON-RIGATORY.htm
Don't be silly, he was tasked by both Leicestershire Police and the Portuguese Police.
www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/PJ/MARK_HARRISON-RIGATORY.htm
So, can someone please give me, at least a hypothetical idea, what grounds of appeal Amaral or his lawyer might cite that would be considered an acceptable basis for an appeal?
His post-ruling spoutings in the media may give an indication...
Are we concerned because we don't believe Sr Amaral should be allowed a facility available to all others, because of the perception he is such bad heavy dude he is not entitled to due process because we say so?
Normal grounds for appeal go like this:
The judgement is wrong in that it erred in law, in fact or in the exercise the court's discretion.
The judgement is unjust because of a procedural or other irregularity in the proceedings in the lower court.
Then in this instance there are points Montclair drew attention to ie the level of damages etc.
Posters may be surprised at the number of appeals against magistrates rulings in this country simply because the magistrates in effect "exceeded their authority". Appeals against judgements in higher courts on similar grounds are not totally unknown.
If Sr Amaral is entitled to appeal his application will be upheld and the whole thing will do another couple of laps; why worry?.
Are we concerned because we don't believe Sr Amaral should be allowed a facility available to all others, because of the perception he is such bad heavy dude he is not entitled to due process because we say so?
Normal grounds for appeal go like this:
The judgement is wrong in that it erred in law, in fact or in the exercise the court's discretion.
The judgement is unjust because of a procedural or other irregularity in the proceedings in the lower court.
Then in this instance there are points Montclair drew attention to ie the level of damages etc.
Posters may be surprised at the number of appeals against magistrates rulings in this country simply because the magistrates in effect "exceeded their authority". Appeals against judgements in higher courts on similar grounds are not totally unknown.
If Sr Amaral is entitled to appeal his application will be upheld and the whole thing will do another couple of laps; why worry?.
Are we concerned because we don't believe Sr Amaral should be allowed a facility available to all others, because of the perception he is such bad heavy dude he is not entitled to due process because we say so?
Normal grounds for appeal go like this:
The judgement is wrong in that it erred in law, in fact or in the exercise the court's discretion.
The judgement is unjust because of a procedural or other irregularity in the proceedings in the lower court.
Then in this instance there are points Montclair drew attention to ie the level of damages etc.
Posters may be surprised at the number of appeals against magistrates rulings in this country simply because the magistrates in effect "exceeded their authority". Appeals against judgements in higher courts on similar grounds are not totally unknown.
If Sr Amaral is entitled to appeal his application will be upheld and the whole thing will do another couple of laps; why worry?.
I just can't see how the final chapter of Amaral's book can be squared with that part of the Prosecutors' report which makes plain the McCanns are innocent of any crime leaving any scope for Amaral to appeal.
The present enquiry is not remotely considering the McCanns, or any of their friends.
So what will be the basis of Amaral's appeal?
The judge said the McCanns were entitled to be presumed innocent by Amaral because he was a retired police officer. Had he been a civilian he could have said what he liked. That's why the publishers didn't have to pay.
Maybe Amaral will have greater joy persuading learned Portuguese judges of a higher jurisdiction that he contradicted and corrected Stuart Prior on interpretation of the forensic results; that Mark Harrison switched the enquiry to one for a little girl assumed dead and stated firmly that Madeleine's concealed remains were in the immediate vicinity of PdL (even though Harrison didn't); that the McCanns set up a fraudulent fund in their (dead) daughter's name (and all the rest) ....In court was Mr Amaral's lawyer allowed to present testimony from the personnel of LP Met NPIA SOCA DCU etc who were part of Mr Amaral's investigation? Would they be allowed to testify?
Maybe Amaral will have greater joy persuading learned Portuguese judges of a higher jurisdiction that he contradicted and corrected Stuart Prior on interpretation of the forensic results; that Mark Harrison switched the enquiry to one for a little girl assumed dead and stated firmly that Madeleine's concealed remains were in the immediate vicinity of PdL (even though Harrison didn't); that the McCanns set up a fraudulent fund in their (dead) daughter's name (and all the rest) ....
Who is getting worked up about his right to appeal?
I doubt any of that will enter into the conversation
I doubt it as well. If the veracity of the "facts" underlying the allegations weren't allowed to be tested in the a quo trial, I don't see how such issues could be raised in an appeal.
Only things raised in the original trial can be heard / tested at appeal, for obvious reasons.
We know how Mr Amaral's lawyer is paid - by whatever of his own money he is allowed to access and by a fund which is any minute going to reach £25000. All very transparent.
How are the lawyers opposing Mr Amaral being paid?
Is it from the proceeds of other litigation? Is it by the fund?
I do not think the McCanns or Amaral are under an obligation to disclose that information to members of an obscure forum. The court will know, however.Funding can be transparent and open, and the gofund page certainly is.
Funding can be transparent and open, and the gofund page certainly is.
One bank account, donations go into it, and only legal costs come out, that is transparency.
Funding can be transparent and open, and the gofund page certainly is.Who says? Where will we be able to see detailed accounts?
One bank account, donations go into it, and only legal costs come out, that is transparency.
Not true at all ...
So the legal fees are being straight out of the Gofundme account?
Or out of the PJGA account?
Which is it?
If so, why did the other two defendants not have to pay? Only Amaral because of his job. The award to the McCanns was ordered solely because the judge said Amaral was restricted by the terms of his job - secrecy and presumption of innocence.
The gofundme money is being transferred to the PJGA account according to Leanne further back in this thread.Who manages and has access to that account?
Who says? Where will we be able to see detailed accounts?
Write to the fund managers for a copy of the accounts enclosing a postal order in a sum to cover copying and administrative costs?If I do so and don't get a reply what should I deduce from this...?
The gofundme money is being transferred to the PJGA account according to Leanne further back in this thread.
If I do so and don't get a reply what should I deduce from this...?That would depend on whether or not the PO was cashed and the time lapse.
Why are some people so worried about the fund? The people who have decided to donate aren't worried about it. That's what is important.How do you know? Spoken to all of them have you?
So let me see if I can clear this up, once and for all.
I understand that by Portuguese libel law, in common with most countries of the world that have libel laws, but unlike the UK, the onus is on the party(ies) bringing an action to establish the untruth of statements that lower reputation.
A slight concern about the McCanns' action is that Kate wrote her own book, which might have invoked the principle: to s/he who is willing, no harm can come.
But that principle is annulled by clear proof that Amaral breached judicial secrecy in writing his book.
And the McCanns can, and have, demonstrated in spades that heaps in Amaral's book, video and interviews (that lower repuation) is also manifestly untrue.
So while Amaral may apply for leave to appeal, what possible grounds will he find?
Not quite. The verdict of the court turned on Amarals job.
(a) As a police officer he had a duty to uphold the law and this includes to maintain the right of presumption of innocence. This continues even though he is retired.
(b) He wrote his book making great play of being a police officer and the coordinator of the case. This lent his tale greater credibility and meant that it was taken more seriously and sold more than if it had been written by Joe Blogs.
(c) a further point was that he published it very soon after the files were realised and so was using privileged information.
All in all, he abused his position, and is paying the price.
Why are some people so worried about the fund? The people who have decided to donate aren't worried about it. That's what is important.
Would you go with the view, then, that if he had written the book as a private citizen (without access to privileged information) he'd have gotten away with it?
Yes. I think he would.
How much interest would it have aroused? And how many copies would it have sold?
But not because, in a legal sense, he deserved to get away with it; simply because the McCanns wouldn't have bothered to pursue it.
Is that right?
They are pursuing it because he is damaging the search for Madeleine.
If the book had been written by Joe Blogs then it would not have sold well and would not have damaged the search.
They are pursuing it because he is damaging the search for Madeleine.
If the book had been written by Joe Blogs then it would not have sold well and would not have damaged the search.
Not quite. The verdict of the court turned on Amarals job.
(a) As a police officer he had a duty to uphold the law and this includes to maintain the right of presumption of innocence. This continues even though he is retired.
(b) He wrote his book making great play of being a police officer and the coordinator of the case. This lent his tale greater credibility and meant that it was taken more seriously and sold more than if it had been written by Joe Blogs.
(c) a further point was that he published it very soon after the files were realised and so was using privileged information.
All in all, he abused his position, and is paying the price.
If Gonçalo Amaral had abused his position, why was he never sanctioned by the PJ hierarchy? IIRC, Isabel Duarte rushed to a court in Oeiras, along with the McCann couple, to file a complaint against GA for not respecting the secret of justice. This was in 2010 and I don't remember him being accused by the Ministério Público for this. The arguments in the judgement could have come from the mouth of Isabel Duarte, they have always been her "cheval de bataille".
Good news for the mccann supporters.Fantastic.
The fund has reached the £25,000 and the 'appeal will be filed in due tme'.
8)--)) 8@??)( 8@??)( 8@??)(
Fantastic.
BTW how many UK papers will report this tomorrow?
We shall see shortly.My prediction is that whatever expert does the anti-Amaral PR will try to get the word "trolls" pasted into every article as it passes the editors' desks.
Good news for the mccann supporters.
The fund has reached the £25,000 and the 'appeal will be filed in due tme'.
8)--)) 8@??)( 8@??)( 8@??)(
Oh bother I got it wrong again dad! I said it would take about 6 weeks.Yes, you sure did underestimate the fanatical zeal of the Ammy Barmy Army!
Oh bother I got it wrong again dad! I said it would take about 6 weeks.
Not sure if that effort measures up to the £40,000 raised in three days using the same method of subscription, to unseat Mr Carmichael ... maybe it doesn't count since it didn't reach its target.
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3103604/Court-bid-oust-former-Lib-Dem-minister-Alistair-Carmichael-MP-revelation-leaked-Sturgeon-memo.html#ixzz3boBMfGez
The Law seems to be an expensive business both here and in Portugal ... is anyone in the position to know if the Portuguese collection for Mr Amaral's Fund matches the British one?
Should be easy enough for those in the know to find out ... transparency and all that.
Not sure if that effort measures up to the £40,000 raised in three days using the same method of subscription, to unseat Mr Carmichael ... maybe it doesn't count since it didn't reach its target.
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3103604/Court-bid-oust-former-Lib-Dem-minister-Alistair-Carmichael-MP-revelation-leaked-Sturgeon-memo.html#ixzz3boBMfGez
The Law seems to be an expensive business both here and in Portugal ... is anyone in the position to know if the Portuguese collection for Mr Amaral's Fund matches the British one?
Should be easy enough for those in the know to find out ... transparency and all that.
The fund isn't restricted to a single country and all the donations are available for viewing if you care to trawl through them
I suspect that apart from a few people with an axe to grind and a few more with just a passing interest no one really cares about any of it.
Quote from Kirk Douglas and John Wayne in "The War Wagon":
"Mine hit the ground first!"
"Mine was taller!"
8(*(
Thanks to Pamalam trawling through the comments is much less of a chore ... but no less diverting.
However the transparency of the of the PJGA side of things seem as opaque as it always has been. 8(0(*
What I find amusing is people who claim to not know the McCANNS get upset and bothered about Amaral- who was not involved in any way of Madeleines disappearance. I mean it is play ground mentality. Parents hate Amaral so we hate him too. men a men a...dood doo de doo dah
He stood up to the parents! and dared to challenge their 'abduction' story. And why not!
What I find amusing is people who claim to not know the McCANNS get upset and bothered about Amaral- who was not involved in any way of Madeleines disappearance. I mean it is play ground mentality. Parents hate Amaral so we hate him too. men a men a...dood doo de doo dah
He stood up to the parents! and dared to challenge their 'abduction' story. And why not!
Amaral's methodology (in 'finding' that the McCanns had something sinister to hide) lacked rigour and failed to stand up to close scrutiny.
That's why we tend to dismiss his conclusions with disdain.
Amaral's methodology (in 'finding' that the McCanns had something sinister to hide) lacked rigour and failed to stand up to close scrutiny.
That's why we tend to dismiss his conclusions with disdain.
Was she, or is this just another myth having its regular monthly airing?
And that is ok . You disagree with the way he did things. I have no opinion on that I wasn't there. I believe you and others have a right to question his methodology, but it is up there with those who question the Parent's theory as a stranger abduction through a window! The hatred comes from the McCANN CAMP! Unbelievers are called; Skeptics, trolls and bashers... All done with a smug unknowingness of what happened to little Maddie.
Kate was very forgiving of an abductor who may have raped/tortured/murdered her daughter, but wanted Amaral to live in fear? Not really the behaviour of a sane person now is it?
Was she, or is this just another myth having its regular monthly airing?
Kate did say that she thought she could forgive Madeleine's abductor ....I know that. She didn't say she was 'very forgiving' towards Madeleine's abductor though did she? this is what she said:
I know that. She didn't say she was 'very forgiving' towards Madeleine's abductor though did she? this is what she said:
‘I think I could probably forgive Madeleine’s abductor whatever the circumstances. I don’t know whether it’s simply because I’m stronger or because there’s no benefit in not forgiving someone.
'I can’t change anything and I don’t want to be eaten up by hatred and bitterness.
'And maybe there is an element of pity - what kind of person could do something like this? Of course, forgiveness will always be easier if there is remorse.’
ETA: Imagine being vilified for expressing the above sentiments!
I know that. She didn't say she was 'very forgiving' towards Madeleine's abductor though did she? this is what she said:
‘I think I could probably forgive Madeleine’s abductor whatever the circumstances. I don’t know whether it’s simply because I’m stronger or because there’s no benefit in not forgiving someone.
'I can’t change anything and I don’t want to be eaten up by hatred and bitterness.
'And maybe there is an element of pity - what kind of person could do something like this? Of course, forgiveness will always be easier if there is remorse.’
ETA: Imagine being vilified for expressing the above sentiments!
I know that. She didn't say she was 'very forgiving' towards Madeleine's abductor though did she? this is what she said:
‘I think I could probably forgive Madeleine’s abductor whatever the circumstances. I don’t know whether it’s simply because I’m stronger or because there’s no benefit in not forgiving someone.
'I can’t change anything and I don’t want to be eaten up by hatred and bitterness.
'And maybe there is an element of pity - what kind of person could do something like this? Of course, forgiveness will always be easier if there is remorse.’
ETA: Imagine being vilified for expressing the above sentiments!
Giving forgiveness ?I see, so on the one hand you are suggesting that only God can issue forgiveness and on the other you are asking whether or not Madeleine would forgive her parents...you're in a bit of a muddle aren't you?
She is far from divine.
I wonder if Madeleine was alive, she would have forgiven her parents for leaving her and her siblings alone and unprotected ?
I see, so on the one hand you are suggesting that only God can issue forgiveness and on the other you are asking whether or not Madeleine would forgive her parents...you're in a bit of a muddle aren't you?
I was being sarcastic.No I have no idea what it means at all.
You do know what that means, don't you ? 8(0(*
I know that. She didn't say she was 'very forgiving' towards Madeleine's abductor though did she? this is what she said:
‘I think I could probably forgive Madeleine’s abductor whatever the circumstances. I don’t know whether it’s simply because I’m stronger or because there’s no benefit in not forgiving someone.
'I can’t change anything and I don’t want to be eaten up by hatred and bitterness.
'And maybe there is an element of pity - what kind of person could do something like this? Of course, forgiveness will always be easier if there is remorse.’
ETA: Imagine being vilified for expressing the above sentiments!
Dearest Alfiekins, you are trying to be naughty by demanding verbatim scripts, let's have a closer look ok your sentence in red...Well Kate was and so were Summers and Swan, so not too difficult to imagine actually.
‘I think I could probably forgive Madeleine’s abductor whatever the circumstances.
Your 3 year old daughter is 'abducted' being raped /tortured/ murdered forgivness is on offer? really? if they say ...('sorry' very nicely?) to a stranger or perhaps she knew the person who took (abducted) Madeliene?
I don’t know whether it’s simply because I’m stronger or because there’s no benefit in not forgiving someone.
No benefit in NOT forgiving someone= she was offering forgiveness!
I can’t change anything and I don’t want to be eaten up by hatred and bitterness.
but then...she said about Amaral... oh you know what this very forgiving woman said don't you!
Imagine being vilified for expressing the above sentiments!
Are you suggesting Kate is a villain? those are her words and her behaviour, would you prefer I didn't comment on them ? Does it make me a basher for repeating her words and educating some who may want to understand why a mother can forgive an 'predatory animal' but hates a guy who wrote a book!
Imagine being villified for doing THAT.
8)><(
Well Kate was and so were Summers and Swan, so not too difficult to imagine actually.
My understanding is that Kate would be easier to forgive an abductor who showed remorse, perhaps the same goes for a bent ex-cop who wrote that she'd hidden the body of her daughter on a beach? &%+((£
Out of interest where did Kate write that she could forgive Madeleine's abductor but that she could never forgive Amaral?Never mind where Kate hinted at that, where did I say that?! I have no idea whether Kate would ever forgive Amaral - maybe she would, I never for one moment said anything about dropping the case against him, so I don't know where you got that from. I very much doubt Kate's forgiveness would also include a desire for Madeleine's abductor to escape justice either.
Gosh you know, slips my mind... but just came to me that she never offered Amaral forgiveness in any of her interviews! if only she had said.. you know... to him in court.. but anyway, no matter.
We get the point that she was suing this ( I will forgive him if he shows remorse Mr Amaral) Man because of the pain and psychological damage to her and her family- which according to her sister in law was MUCH worse than Maddie being abducted- even the Judge asked about that. But If you are saying you understand Kate would forgive Amaral and drop the case then I miss judged her entirely...erm where did she hint at that?
Or was that just your understanding based on....?
I never read his book. I never felt the need to. There are many theories out there...His is based on what the police were thinking at the time rightly or wrongly.
Never mind where Kate hinted at that, where did I say that?! I have no idea whether Kate would ever forgive Amaral - maybe she would, I never for one moment said anything about dropping the case against him, so I don't know where you got that from. I very much doubt Kate's forgiveness would also include a desire for Madeleine's abductor to escape justice either.
Dearest Alfiekins, you are trying to be naughty by demanding verbatim scripts, let's have a closer look ok your sentence in red...
‘I think I could probably forgive Madeleine’s abductor whatever the circumstances.
Your 3 year old daughter is 'abducted' being raped /tortured/ murdered forgivness is on offer? really? if they say ...('sorry' very nicely?) to a stranger or perhaps she knew the person who took (abducted) Madeliene?
I don’t know whether it’s simply because I’m stronger or because there’s no benefit in not forgiving someone.
No benefit in NOT forgiving someone= she was offering forgiveness!
I can’t change anything and I don’t want to be eaten up by hatred and bitterness.
but then...she said about Amaral... oh you know what this very forgiving woman said don't you!
Imagine being vilified for expressing the above sentiments!
Are you suggesting Kate is a villain? those are her words and her behaviour, would you prefer I didn't comment on them ? Does it make me a basher for repeating her words and educating some who may want to understand why a mother can forgive an 'predatory animal' but hates a guy who wrote a book!
Imagine being villified for doing THAT.
8)><(
in the situation Kate was in emotions would change daily
A self induced situation.The abductor is to blame...refer to the previous 10 million posts on this topic
The abductor is to blame...refer to the previous 10 million posts on this topic
Now now Alfiekins... Alfie quote " where did I say that?!"My exclamation "where did I say that?!" referred to your statement that i suggested Kate would drop the case against Amaral. I am not in need of champagne either with or without strawberries, thanks.
Right here:
Alfie quote"My understanding is that Kate would be easier to forgive an abductor who showed remorse, perhaps the same goes for a bent ex-cop
Alfie quote"I have no idea whether Kate would ever forgive Amaral - maybe she would,"
So it was your understanding which then became 'you had no idea'...
Let us sip a glass of bubbly, with strawberrry's- calm you down a bit!
Kate will not forgive Amaral after all....tsk!
A quick sense check in me like reveals about 1100 posters posting at the same rate as you.
Now is that likely?
Hmm, the shit may be about to hit the fan now...
http://www.dailystar.co.uk/news/latest-news/445625/Madeline-McCann-Portugal-appeal-25K
My prediction is that whatever expert does the anti-Amaral PR will try to get the word "trolls" pasted into every article as it passes the editors' desks.Predicted 31st May, proven true 1st June.
Predicted 31st May, proven true 1st June.
The Star begin their article with the big print headline "Sick trolls raised £25k ..."
Pink is such a predictable colour.
Where's that "told you so" smiley when its needed?
http://www.dailystar.co.uk/news/latest-news/445625/Madeline-McCann-Portugal-appeal-25K
Apparently people and trolls (supernatural beings?) made donations.people, trolls and members of the Metropolitan Police Force, allegedly. That's the interesting bit. 8(>((
Well it should all be good for a laugh if nothing else.
people, trolls and members of the Metropolitan Police Force, allegedly. That's the interesting bit. 8(>((
"Star reporter accidentally falls out of window while investigating alleged MPS sick troll's contribution to Amaral fund"?Maybe....maybe not. 8)--))
It will all fizzle out in short order.
Oh dear.
Some people aren't too happy this morning.
8)--)) @)(++(* @)(++(* @)(++(*
I'm not surprised. Would you be happy if you had just been described as a 'sick troll' in a national newspaper?
people, trolls and members of the Metropolitan Police Force, allegedly. That's the interesting bit. 8(>((
What will happen to the money if Amaral is denied leave to appeal?
I don't think we know, do we? I'm sure it will become clear if his appeal is denied.
What will happen to the money if Amaral is denied leave to appeal?
Why do you keep thinking that Amaral will be denied leave to appeal? That question has already been answered.
No it hasn't.
Amaral hasn't lodged his appeal yet.
When it is lodged, it will be considered and either accepted or declined.
If it is declined, the McCanns will be outright winners at first instance.
Will they really?
It seems to me that however much MONEY they might receive, they will always be losers, in that they have lost their eldest child.
Will they really?
It seems to me that however much MONEY they might receive, they will always be losers, in that they have lost their eldest child.
No it hasn't.
Amaral hasn't lodged his appeal yet.
When it is lodged, it will be considered and either accepted or declined.
If it is declined, the McCanns will be outright winners at first instance.
It will be considered by the Appeals Court. With the amount of € 500.000,00 at stake there is no way that it would not go to the Tribunal da Relação. Haven't you been reading the posts about the appeals procedure.
I have.
But why should it be necessary to do more than compare the final chapter of Amaral's book (which accuses them of direct complicity in the "death" of their daughter) with that part of the Prosecutors' archiving dispatch which makes plain the McCanns are not implicated at all in their daughter's disappearance?
After that, invite Amaral to packing, surely?
The AG said no such thing Ferryman. They said there was no evidence of the parents involvement which is a long way from what you inferred.
No it's not.
Yes it is. There is no way the AG could make that determination since even the crime if any is unknown. In any event, he made it crystal clear that the McCanns lost the opportunity to prove/confirm/corroborate what they claimed by the actions of their friends in refusing to cooperate with the investigation.
It seems evident to us and because the files contain enough elements for such, that the crime of exposure or abandonment according to article 138 of the Penal Code can be eliminated from that range:
"1 - Whoever places another person's life in danger,
a) By exposing her in a location where she is subject to a situation from which she, on her own, cannot defend herself against; or
b) Abandoning her without defence, whenever the agent had the duty to guard her, to watch over her or to assist her;"
This legal type of crime is only fulfilled with intent, and this intent has to cover the creation of danger to the victim's life, as well as the absence of a capacity to defend herself, on the victim's behalf. In the case of the files and facing the elements that were collected it is evident that none of the arguidos Gerald or Kate acted with intent. The parents could not foresee that in the resort that they chose to spend a brief holiday, they could place the life of any of their children in danger, nor was that demanded from them: it was located in a peaceful area, where most of the residents are foreign citizens of the same nationality and without any known history of this type of criminality.
The parents didn't even represent the realisation of the fact, they trusted that everything would go well, as it had gone on the previous evenings, thus not equating, nor was it demanded from them, the possibility of the occurrence of an abduction of any of the children that were in their respective apartments.
Reinforcing what was said is also the fact that despite leaving their daughter alone with her siblings in the apartment during more or less dilated moments, it is certain that in any case they checked on them. Without any pretension or compensatory effect, we must also recognise that the parents already expiate a heavy penalty - the disappearance of Madeleine - due to their lack of caution in the surveillance and protection of their children.
Concerning the other indicated crimes, they are no more than that and despite our perception that, due to its high degree of probability, the occurrence of a homicide cannot be discarded, such cannot be more than a mere supposition, due to the lack of sustaining elements in the files.
The non involvement of the arguidos parents of Madeleine in any penally relevant action seems to result from the objective circumstances of them not being inside the apartment when she disappeared, from the normal behaviour that they adopted until said disappearance and afterwards, as can be amply concluded from the witness statements, from the telephone communications analysis and also from the forensics' conclusions, namely the Reports from the FSS and from the National Institute for Legal Medicine.
To this can be added that, in reality, none of the indications that led to their constitution as arguidos was later confirmed or consolidated. If not, let us see: the information concerning a previous alert of the media before the polices was not confirmed, the traces that were marked by the dogs were not ratified in laboratory, and the initial indications from the above transcribed email, better clarified at a later date, ended up being revealed as innocuous.
Even if, hypothetically, one could admit that Gerald and Kate McCann might be responsible over the child's death, it would still have to be explained how, where through, when, with what means, with the help of whom and where to they freed themselves of her body within the restricted time frame that would have been available to them to do so. Their daily routine, until the 3rd of May, had been circumscribed to the narrow borders of the 'Ocean Club' resort and to the beach that lies next to it, unknowing the surrounding terrain and, apart from the English friends that were with them on holiday there, they had no known friends or contacts in Portugal.
(Portuguese prosecutors)
I agree. Money doesn't buy happiness or restore a reputation. Had an ordinary citizen written the same book as Amaral no award would have been made. He paid for what he said as because he was an ex policeman, no other reason.
I'm not absolutely sure that even under Portuguese Law an ordinary citizen could have written the same book an got off without getting his/her knuckles rapped for ...
(a) impersonating a police officer
(b) telling downright lies ... and I think you miss entirely that Mr Amaral's book was written because he was a high ranking police officer and as a result carried weight which a book written by a civilian would not.
Oh and as you have pointed out as an ex- police officer ... he broke the law.
As well as being unlawful, imo writing a book of that nature showed particular stupidity and arrogance ... his friend Paulo Pereira Cristóvão kept his nose clean on that occasion by billing his book on Madeleine McCann as fiction.
So you assume I meant an ordinary citizen might have written a book saying he was a police officer? To use one of your favourite sayings, don't be ridiculous. Had an ordinary citizen used the PJ files to write a book and reached the same conclusion there would have been no award. Lying was not mentioned in the judgement or the proven facts, so immaterial. Amaral says he wrote the book the PJ and investigators were criticised and no-one supported them.
Until the appeal is heard it is the opinion of one judge that Amaral broke the law. Others may take a different view.
So you assume I meant an ordinary citizen might have written a book saying he was a police officer? To use one of your favourite sayings, don't be ridiculous. Had an ordinary citizen used the PJ files to write a book and reached the same conclusion there would have been no award. Lying was not mentioned in the judgement or the proven facts, so immaterial. Amaral says he wrote the book the PJ and investigators were criticised and no-one supported them.
Until the appeal is heard it is the opinion of one judge that Amaral broke the law. Others may take a different view.
The words you used were "the same book as Amaral".
The Judge restricted herself to points of law in making her judgement against him ... it will be interesting to see what tack his legal team will take when taking that into consideration in applying for appeal.
A book written by an ordinary citizen would
(a) not have attracted a publisher
(b) it would have sold a handful of copies.
(c) It would not have created the storm that Amarals book clearly did (we can argue til the cows come home about the accuracy but it did attract attention)
And entirely because he was the police officer coordinating this case. his book and documentary sold.
Police officers simply cannot be permitted to write such books, for obvious reasons.
I would think it would be perverting the course of justice, JP.
There are already miscarriages of justice which is bad enough ... but I think it would be complete anarchy if senior police officers were allowed to write books such as Mr Amaral's accusing people against whom there is no evidence.
D'Accord!
Can someone please explain how a book written by the former lead investigator into the disappearance of a little girl that proclaims she is definitely dead, that her parents know she is dead and caused her death, disposed of and hid her body, simulated an 'abduction' and launched a fraudulent 'appeal' in their (dead!) daughter's name can have done other than harm the search for her.
I mean, how hard should anyone have to try to 'prove' such a thing?
And why should not Amaral be invited to go forth and multiply in respect of his application to have the same old lies re-hashed in front of a different judge at some far-distant time?
It was found not proved that the book harmed the search and no award was made for that.
If you had been in that situation, how do you think that you could you have proved that it had?
It was found not proved that the book harmed the search and no award was made for that.
Why ask me?
but it was found that amaral has to pay damages...you seem to want to accept some parts of the judgement but not other parts...the bits that suit your point of view
Have you read the judgement and the facts proved/unproven? That's what I did. The award was made to Kate and Gerald McCann only. No award was made because harm was caused to the 'search', nor for any 'libels' affecting their children, despite what they told the newspapers.
"We want to emphasise that the action was never about money. It has always been focused on the effects of the libels on our other children and the damage that was done to the search for Madeleine," they said in a statement.
the search may well have been harmed by the book...but it was not proven
the search may well have been harmed by the book...but it was not proven
If you had been in that situation, how do you think that you could you have proved that it had?
Have you read the judgement and the facts proved/unproven? That's what I did. The award was made to Kate and Gerald McCann only. No award was made because harm was caused to the 'search', nor for any 'libels' affecting their children, despite what they told the newspapers.
"We want to emphasise that the action was never about money. It has always been focused on the effects of the libels on our other children and the damage that was done to the search for Madeleine," they said in a statement.
It baffles me that the notion of people reading, and believing, a book which proclaims that Madeleine is dead, Kate and Gerry know Madeleine is dead, indeed, caused her death and hid her body, then fabricated a fraudulent appeal in their (dead!) daughter's name, could possibly have done other than harm the search for Madeleine.
Some things are just so self-evident, they don't stand in need of proof.
So does Ms Baulch have a plan 'B' for what to do with all that money if Amaral is denied leave to appeal?
http://www.gofundme.com/questions/
Thank you, Alice
Does it cost anything?
While it's free to create and share your online fundraising campaign, GoFundMe will deduct a 5% fee from each donation that you receive.
Since our fee is deducted automatically, you'll never need to worry about being billed or owing us any money.
A small processing fee of about 3% will also be deducted from each donation.
Please see Pricing & Fees for more info.
Here are pinks to today's articles about this successful fundraising in Express Mail Mirror Telegraph Times Independent and Guardian:-You would have to be very deluded to think the Telegraph, the Times, the Independent and the Guardian would show the slightest interest in Ammy's Fund. The only possible interest those papers might have in this stupendous money-raising exercise is if it is revealed that members of the Met actually did donate a grand to help the man who was legally adjudged to have caused damage to the parents of the missing child their force is currently trying to find. Personally I think it's highly unlikely to be true and probably not worth the journalistic effort involved in trying to establish the facts one way or the other.
ETA Sorry, I can't find any
You would have to be very deluded to think the Telegraph, the Times, the Independent and the Guardian would show the slightest interest in Ammy's Fund. The only possible interest those papers might have in this stupendous money-raising exercise is if it is revealed that members of the Met actually did donate a grand to help the man who was legally adjudged to have caused damage to the parents of the missing child their force is currently trying to find. Personally I think it's highly unlikely to be true and probably not worth the journalistic effort involved in trying to establish the facts one way or the other.I imagine the journalists do want to write honestly about the case including how this successful fundraising shows the support of thousands of the british public, but at present only pink puff pastries are allowed.
I imagine the journalists do want to write honestly about the case including how this successful fundraising shows the support of thousands of the british public, but at present only pink puff pastries are allowed.Where are you getting "thousands of the British Public" from?
Where are you getting "thousands of the British Public" from?1606 donations, take away foreigners and repeat contributions. Oh yes and for one big donation count the large number of individuals who put money in the helmet. About 1000 brits total IMO. And special thanks to the generous headline writer at the Star for directly generating about £300 of donations.
1606 donations, take away foreigners and repeat contributions. Oh yes and for one big donation count the large number of individuals who put money in the helmet. About 1000 brits total IMO. And special thanks to the generous headline writer at the Star for directly generating about £300 of donations.1000 does not equal thousands, thank you for clarifying.
Decent response though for just a month, don't you think?
1000 does not equal thousands, thank you for clarifying.Apologies not thousands of brits, yet.
As there's one born every minute it's quite a poor response14 every minute.
14 every minute.
IMO the main thing is that the remarkably successful fund will ensure that the appeal is not lost through lack of a good lawyer.
I think Amaral has already gone through most of the good lawyers in Portugal. Or at least most of those who would be fool enough to represent him.
Well they know he has access to £25k at least which is about all they will be interested in. If that's enough someone will step up to the oche.
1606 donations, take away foreigners and repeat contributions. Oh yes and for one big donation count the large number of individuals who put money in the helmet. About 1000 brits total IMO. And special thanks to the generous headline writer at the Star for directly generating about £300 of donations.
There really is one born every minute! Do you actually believe that a group of serving MET police officers made a contribution of £1000 to Amaral?
A clue - because someone puts something in a comment section does not necessarily make it true 8(0(*
I guess believing MPS means Metropolitan Police Service rather than Metres Per Second might lead to confusion.
In my day the comment was: "well it says Bovril on the back of a Routemaster". Then on the other hand never rule out Cocker's Law.
Wots cockers law? I've heard you speak of it before...
AKA "Murphy's Law":
"Anything that can go wrong will go wrong" or a variant: "If it is remotely possible for something to happen it probably will happen".
There really is one born every minute! Do you actually believe that a group of serving MET police officers made a contribution of £1000 to Amaral?Agreed the interpretation of initials MPS may be over-imaginative but the point is a group of people (possibly connected with law enforcement) together made a donation of £1000 pounds. And that was matched by another £1000 from an individual.
A clue - because someone puts something in a comment section does not necessarily make it true 8(0(*
Alice 29-04-2015
At the present donation rate of £67 per hour and allowing a bit of diversity he'll have it in about 6 weeks
Davel 29-04-2015
you are making rather a ridiculous assumption that the rate will continue at a similar level
Alf 29-04-2015
We shall review the total in 6 weeks and see if you're right.
What a surprise for everyone.
8(*(
Let's put it this way ... the Met are involved in an active investigation which requires the cooperation of another country's police force, particularly as that country retains the lead authority in the case of a missing child.
Officers from the Met are
(a) showing preference in a judgement handed down by that country's Courts
(b) the pursuers in that case happen to be the parents of the missing child subject to active investigation by the Met
So at a stroke there is a risk of alienating the establishment of a country whose good will is pivotal to the ongoing case.
There is a risk of causing anxiety, not only to the parents of the child involved in the active Met case, but also to those concerned the police should be seen to be impartial.
All in my opinion of course ... and anyway I have as much faith in the existence of these as I have in the existence of Ulrich Merz.
It's all very much like crisis time in Ireland when instead of the Madonnas starting to spin ... we have detectives.
There is nothing delaying the request for an appeal being submitted now ... and those digging into their pockets should be aware that if allowed it will be an expensive business as long as they are prepared to dig deep ... but while doing so they should remember that Mr Amaral does not qualify for financial support to proceed his cases for the simple reason his income is too great.
A lot of police officers from both the Met and Leicestershire Police are quietly very unhappy at the way this investigation has developed and who would blame them.
Is this your opinion, Angelo?
Or are you stating this as a fact? In which case the rules of this forum suggest that you should provide some sort of cite.
I'm afraid the Official Secrets Act prevents them speaking out so a cite is not possible.
A lot of police officers from both the Met and Leicestershire Police are quietly very unhappy at the way this investigation has developed and who would blame them.
To summarize
A three-year-old English/Irish girl goes missing in Portugal and despite the police from several countries being involved in the search the parents set about a multi million pound private investigation which ended up as one almighty charade. The Portuguese lead detective rightly follows every lead and ends up investigating the parents only to be removed from the case, is effectively forced to resign, writes a book about his experiences in the case and reveals his theory and is sued by the parents for a million quid. With me so far?
I'm afraid the Official Secrets Act prevents them speaking out so a cite is not possible.
I'm afraid the Official Secrets Act prevents them speaking out so a cite is not possible.If that is case then how do YOU know that a lot of police officers are very unhappy about the way the investigation has developed? Quantify "a lot".
If that is case then how do YOU know that a lot of police officers are very unhappy about the way the investigation has developed? Quantify "a lot".
Well that works both ways.No, but then I'm not the one making any claims about what hundreds of members of two police forces privately believe.
Can you cite the number of police officers who believe the mccanns story ?
Update from Leanne Baulch as fund reaches £26,356 in a month!!
When I started the GoFundMe, so many people said they thought I was being over-ambitious with the target, even I had doubts that we would get this far. Not because I doubted Gonçalo's support, but because I didn't think people would know about the site to donate in the first place. I wanted a place for us to be able show our support, a place for us all to come together to stand by what is right, and a place for those that don't have PayPal to donate, and that's exactly what it has been, and hopefully, with your support, will continue to be.
What we have achieved together is truly amazing, but it's not over yet. We still need to keep supporting Gonçalo, whether that is by donating, sharing the link to the fund, or with your kind messages, it all counts, and it's extremely important.
Thank you for donating, thank you for sharing, and thank you for supporting! You are all fantastic people, standing up for what is right. Gonçalo needed our support, and it's evident on here that he has so much! It's not just about the donations, the messages of support are priceless.
www.gofundme.com/Legal-DefencePJGA
I heard that fewer than 100 individuals made more than 300 of the donations, and that's only the ones who used the same names for their multiple donations. It demonstrates a certain level of fanaticism amongst the die-hard "sceptic" community.
I absolutely agree that the messages of support are "priceless" ... I thoroughly recommend a visit to Pamalam's site where someone has taken the trouble to transfer them to be read in a trouble free manner.
There is no doubt in my mind these should be recorded for posterity.
Although The Star referred to 'sick trolls' supporting Amaral's Fund it didn't quote any of the messages left with the donations. Possibly because they were clearly not written by 'trolls' at all, but by ordinary people. These people either don't believe the McCanns version of events or are simply supporting an 'underdog', which is a very British thing to do.The Star could have chosen from any number of comments to support its claim of "sick trolls" if it had been paying close enough attention.
A lot of police officers from both the Met and Leicestershire Police are quietly very unhappy at the way this investigation has developed and who would blame them.
To summarize
A three-year-old English/Irish girl goes missing in Portugal and despite the police from several countries being involved in the search the parents set about a multi million pound private investigation which ended up as one almighty charade. The Portuguese lead detective rightly follows every lead and ends up investigating the parents only to be removed from the case, is effectively forced to resign, writes a book about his experiences in the case and reveals his theory and is sued by the parents for a million quid. With me so far?
The Star could have chosen from any number of comments to support its claim of "sick trolls" if it had been paying close enough attention.
For example?One example would be the person who left a donation in the name of Isabel Duarte. Another would be the person who signed themselves MPS and claimed that "a large number" of police officers had had a whip round and raised £1,000. Plenty more examples would be those (often anonymous donors) with a PREFERENCE for leaving messages propagating all the usual MYTHS and LIES associated with this case and DOING so with a plethora of ANGRY capital letters and EXCLAMATION MARKS!!!!
One example would be the person who left a donation in the name of Isabel Duarte. Another would be the person who signed themselves MPS and claimed that "a large number" of police officers had had a whip round and raised £1,000. Plenty more examples would be those (often anonymous donors) with a PREFERENCE for leaving messages propagating all the usual MYTHS and LIES associated with this case and DOING so with a plethora of ANGRY capital letters and EXCLAMATION MARKS!!!!
I guess it depends though on your definition of "sick troll". I think there is something quite sick about the concerted and determined effort to cause the McCanns as much hurt as possible, which - let's be honest - is what this fund raising campaign is really all about. You can dress it up as a "crusade for justice" by lovely decent people as much as you like, but in my opinion there is something both sick and trollish about supporting a man legally adjudged to have caused damage to the parents of a missing child. But then there have been all sorts of movements and campaigns that have attracted wide support that I have struggled to understand - at one point (for example) the BNP had close to 12,000 fully paid up members for example, and they used to have a huge upsurge of donations every time the MSM reported another Nick Griffin racist remark, arrest or thuggish debacle - I guess throwing your support behind causes and individuals like this is a way of snubbing your nose at the establishment, all very British I'm sure!
Yet another tirade in support of the mccanns.
and bringing in the BNP into it.
How desperate.
mcann supporters are just angry because more people support GA then they do kate mcann you can tell it infuritates them!!!
mcann supporters are just angry because more people support GA then they do kate mcann you can tell it infuritates them!!!@)(++(* Yes I'm really infuritated!
@)(++(* Yes I'm really infuritated!
One example would be the person who left a donation in the name of Isabel Duarte. Another would be the person who signed themselves MPS and claimed that "a large number" of police officers had had a whip round and raised £1,000. Plenty more examples would be those (often anonymous donors) with a PREFERENCE for leaving messages propagating all the usual MYTHS and LIES associated with this case and DOING so with a plethora of ANGRY capital letters and EXCLAMATION MARKS!!!!
I guess it depends though on your definition of "sick troll". I think there is something quite sick about the concerted and determined effort to cause the McCanns as much hurt as possible, which - let's be honest - is what this fund raising campaign is really all about. You can dress it up as a "crusade for justice" by lovely decent people as much as you like, but in my opinion there is something both sick and trollish about supporting a man legally adjudged to have caused damage to the parents of a missing child. But then there have been all sorts of movements and campaigns that have attracted wide support that I have struggled to understand - at one point (for example) the BNP had close to 12,000 fully paid up members for example, and they used to have a huge upsurge of donations every time the MSM reported another Nick Griffin racist remark, arrest or thuggish debacle - I guess throwing your support behind causes and individuals like this is a way of snubbing your nose at the establishment, all very British I'm sure!
@)(++(* Yes I'm really infuritated!
On a more serious note, I do not think I would describe myself as a "McCann supporter" as described by some members of this forum. I would however describe myself as a passionate supporter of justice.
And this case is intriguing because of the small but very vocal community who are convinced that the McCanns are guilty (but seem to be rather unclear as to what they are guilty of) based on some very ropey "evidence".
On the present showing I see them as grieving parents. And on the theme of his thread made the subject of an extraordinary and totally unjustifiable campaign by an ex policeman who thought he could drive a coach and horses through both law and accepted practice. Quite apart from the press in 2007 and 2008.
If actual evidence does emerge that the McCanns were involved in Madeleines disappearance, then they should feel the full force of the law and I will fully support that. But to date there is no such evidence of any kind.
On a more serious note, I do not think I would describe myself as a "McCann supporter" as described by some members of this forum. I would however describe myself as a passionate supporter of justice.I'd go along with every word of that, despite the fact that I have 'McCann Worshipper' below my forum name. @)(++(*
And this case is intriguing because of the small but very vocal community who are convinced that the McCanns are guilty (but seem to be rather unclear as to what they are guilty of) based on some very ropey "evidence".
On the present showing I see them as grieving parents. And on the theme of his thread made the subject of an extraordinary and totally unjustifiable campaign by an ex policeman who thought he could drive a coach and horses through both law and accepted practice. Quite apart from the press in 2007 and 2008.
If actual evidence does emerge that the McCanns were involved in Madeleines disappearance, then they should feel the full force of the law and I will fully support that. But to date there is no such evidence of any kind.
Which is why The Star referred to 'people, police officers and trolls'. Some people have posted inappropriate comments. The vast majority haven't. The good thing, in my opinion, is that the hysteria about 'trolls' is being seen for what it always was; a ploy to discredit those who have had doubts about the McCann's story.Seen by who? No one really gives much thought to or cares about your public image apart from you*, you know.
Seen by who? No one really gives much thought to or cares about your public image apart from you*, you know.
(you being the collective term for regular online McCann critics / sceptics / doubters)
I have noticed that more supporters fit the definition than those who have doubts;Is this a joke?
troll
One who posts a deliberately provocative message to a newsgroup or message board with the intention of causing maximum disruption and argument
http://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=troll
On a more serious note, I do not think I would describe myself as a "McCann supporter" as described by some members of this forum. I would however describe myself as a passionate supporter of justice.
And this case is intriguing because of the small but very vocal community who are convinced that the McCanns are guilty (but seem to be rather unclear as to what they are guilty of) based on some very ropey "evidence".
On the present showing I see them as grieving parents. And on the theme of his thread made the subject of an extraordinary and totally unjustifiable campaign by an ex policeman who thought he could drive a coach and horses through both law and accepted practice. Quite apart from the press in 2007 and 2008.
If actual evidence does emerge that the McCanns were involved in Madeleines disappearance, then they should feel the full force of the law and I will fully support that. But to date there is no such evidence of any kind.
Snip
I am anxious that whoever is responsible for Madeleine McCann's disappearance is found and brought to Justice based solely on evidence.
Ditto
Let's put it this way ... the Met are involved in an active investigation which requires the cooperation of another country's police force, particularly as that country retains the lead authority in the case of a missing child.How does this materially affect Cocker's Law?
Officers from the Met are
(a) showing preference in a judgement handed down by that country's Courts
(b) the pursuers in that case happen to be the parents of the missing child subject to active investigation by the Met
So at a stroke there is a risk of alienating the establishment of a country whose good will is pivotal to the ongoing case.
There is a risk of causing anxiety, not only to the parents of the child involved in the active Met case, but also to those concerned the police should be seen to be impartial.
All in my opinion of course ... and anyway I have as much faith in the existence of these as I have in the existence of Ulrich Merz.
It's all very much like crisis time in Ireland when instead of the Madonnas starting to spin ... we have detectives.
There is nothing delaying the request for an appeal being submitted now ... and those digging into their pockets should be aware that if allowed it will be an expensive business as long as they are prepared to dig deep ... but while doing so they should remember that Mr Amaral does not qualify for financial support to proceed his cases for the simple reason his income is too great.
How does this materially affect Cocker's Law?
I believe in due process ... do you?
mcann supporters are just angry because more people support GA then they do kate mcann you can tell it infuritates them!!!
(snip) ... Another would be the person who signed themselves MPS ... (snip)It is a big donation, a thousand pounds, so whoever made it, they certainly strongly support Mr Amaral.
It is a big donation, a thousand pounds, so whoever made it, they certainly strongly support Mr Amaral.I have a strong suspicion that the person who made it also made a similar sized donation earlier, and yes, their fanatical support of Amaral appears to have no price limit.
If money has been withdrawn from this fund into another account for Amaral then how is anyone to know whether or not that money is simply being re-circulated into the fund to make it appear like big donations are still pouring in? If they play it right they could push the total up to a hundred thou easy peasy! *&*%£A hundred thousand, that would be interesting.
So amaral has raised 25K on the back of a campaign claiming Justice For Madeleine.....The judge has already delivered Justice to Madeleine and amaral is trying to get it thrown out.....Since your post it's gone up to 26.65K
So amaral has raised 25K on the back of a campaign claiming Justice For Madeleine.....The judge has already delivered Justice to Madeleine and amaral is trying to get it thrown out.....No award was made for Madeleine in the judgement, just for her parents.
No award was made for Madeleine in the judgement, just for her parents.
The book claiming maddie is dead has been banned...since there is no proof Maddie is dead then to claim she is dead is an insult to her. Amaral's appeal has nothing to do with justice for Maddie...to claim it is ...is a disgrace
But no award for any damage caused to Madeleine by the book.wriggle..wriggle...wriggle some more
wriggle..wriggle...wriggle some more
Since your post it's gone up to 26.65K
Pegasus or anyone on this thread, a question.
Do you believe that a lawyer defending a client must as a prerequisite approve of or share their clients views because otherwise they would turn down the case?
Pegasus or anyone on this thread, a question.
Do you believe that a lawyer defending a client must as a prerequisite approve of or share their clients views because otherwise they would turn down the case?
What is abhorrent is gonc supporters claiming the appeal is about justice for Maddie...a total lie
Wrong dave.
The case was though partly about the mccanns need for 'revenge',
Is it practical for lawyers to limit themselves only to cases where they believe in the client? Doubtful, particularly if they do legal aid cases. There will be a wide variety of cases I would think, ranging from those where the lawyer thinks the client is innocent to those where he knows the client is guilty. Those are personal opinions though. In the real world a lawyer works for money, not justice. To earn his money he must put up a defense. In the last analysis the court decides on justice, not the lawyer.
Pegasus or anyone on this thread, a question.
Do you believe that a lawyer defending a client must as a prerequisite approve of or share their clients views because otherwise they would turn down the case?
Quite clearly no.
Clearly, lawyers will know their client is guilty in some cases.
How they would live with themselves, if their client was declared not guilty in a trial, and then committed further heinous crimes is another matter entirely.
Pegasus or anyone on this thread, a question.I don't know enough law to answer that. I just see a legal case where one side has more than adequate funds for lawyers, and the other had, until recently, inadequate funds.
Do you believe that a lawyer defending a client must as a prerequisite approve of or share their clients views because otherwise they would turn down the case?
I don't know enough law to answer that. I just see a legal case where one side has more than adequate funds for lawyers, and the other had, until recently, inadequate funds.
Many years ago a person reportedly donated about £100000 pounds towards legal costs of Mr Amaral's opponents. As any ballooner will know, if you put all the weight in one side of the basket, the basket will tip that way. The gofundme appeal will balance the basket to ensure a fair flight, which is decided on the law.
It has been decided on the law and it will be interesting to see where it goes now. I have no problem with amaral raising money from supporters but think it's wrong to promote the fund as justice for MadeleineIMO the original investigation got some important aspects of the case very wrong, and the book and film repeat the same. But that is for the currently active PJ and SY investigations to work on. In this relatively very minor legal case, it makes sense for all parties to have a lawyer.
I don't know enough law to answer that. I just see a legal case where one side has more than adequate funds for lawyers, and the other had, until recently, inadequate funds.
Many years ago a person reportedly donated about £100000 pounds towards legal costs of Mr Amaral's present opponents, and as no criminal case happened, presumably it became available for other legal costs. As any ballooner will know, if you put all the weight in one side of the basket, the basket will tip that way. The gofundme appeal will balance the basket to ensure a fair flight, which is decided on the law.
Yes.
So please do not make the mistake of thinking that all of the donations to the "funds" are from people who support Amarals views.
Neither do they support the view that the McCanns are completely innocent of any involvement in their daughters reported disappearance. You could say the jury is still out on that one!
And speaking of juries, wouldn't it have been interesting to see what a Portuguese jury would have decided in the recent trial instead of a judge with ambitions ??
Yes.I strongly disagree with some of the accusations in the original investigation / book / video.
So please do not make the mistake of thinking that all of the donations to the "funds" are from people who support Amarals views.
A lawyer must retain objectivity, because one who becomes emotionally involved in a case will not last long.
Do you mean suspect his client is guilty, or knows his client is guilty?
In the former case, his job is to put up the best possible defence.
In the latter, if the client has told his lawyer he is guilty (and the lawyer has reason to believe client is telling the truth), then he must recommend a plea of guilty and argue mitigating circumstances.
And in answer to your final question, quite easily - his job is to defend. It is for the prosecution to prove their case, and if they cannot do that (given they hold most of the cards) then the client should go free.
I strongly disagree with some of the accusations in the original investigation / book / video.
Just 1 example the interpretation of the clothing alerts is IMO wrong wrong wrong.
But I support Mr Amaral, and IMO the young lady is doing a great job to balance the lopsided balloon basket which was hanging at a crazy 45 degrees due to the large amounts of legal expenses cash from rich donors all piled up on one side of the basket.
Sorry Angelo, you will have to explain that one. I was referring to donations to the "amaral support" funds. Some posters seemed to be conflating donations received with support for Amarals views.
Could you explain "judge with ambitions" please? Are you suggesting something improper as regards Maria de Melo e Castro?
And what is the point of saying "what a Portuguese jury would have decided in the recent trial instead of a judge with ambitions" - no such thing exists under the Portuguese civil code and so is irrelevant.
I strongly disagree with some of the accusations in the original investigation / book / video.
Just 1 example the interpretation of the clothing alerts is IMO wrong wrong wrong.
But I support Mr Amaral, and IMO the young lady is doing a great job to balance the lopsided balloon basket which was hanging at a crazy 45 degrees due to the large amounts of legal expenses cash from rich donors all piled up on one side of the basket.
I totally agree. The McCanns have always been the fortunate position to be able to throw money at anyone who speaks out against them and that will in the end be their undoing.
Why is that?
Most to speak out against them have been misguided and wrong.
A hypothetical situation agreed. Amaral has attracted so much support because he is seen as the underdog fighting for survival.
Why is that?
Most to speak out against them have been misguided and wrong.
Your comments about the judge suggest a nasty attack of sour grapes.
I totally agree. The McCanns have always been the fortunate position to be able to throw money at anyone who speaks out against them and that will in the end be their undoing.
Most things in Portugal are still politically motivated so I have no reason to believe the recent trial was any different.
Still nothing in any major UK papers except the star about this remarkable raising of more than the 25K target? Hopefully it won't be long before the sun rises.
Portugal is rightly proud of its independent judiciary.
What are you saying? That the McCanns have no right to go to law?
They took action against Express Newspapers and won. Was that unbalanced?
They took action against Bennett (who had too much money to qualify for legal aid - as does Amaral) - are you suggesting that Tugendhut was impressed and swayed by fancy lawyers from Carter Ruck?
I strongly disagree with some of the accusations in the original investigation / book / video.
Just 1 example the interpretation of the clothing alerts is IMO wrong wrong wrong.
But I support Mr Amaral, and IMO the young lady is doing a great job to balance the lopsided balloon basket which was hanging at a crazy 45 degrees due to the large amounts of legal expenses cash from rich donors all piled up on one side of the basket.
@)(++(* Will you still say that if the Appeal Court kick her judgement into touch?
I imagine most people end up being impressed and swayed by fancy lawyers from Carter Ruck.
How closely did you follow that particular case?
If that happens, yes.
The difference is that I am a believer in justice - and the process does get most things right (although sometimes it takes time).
I don't cry foul, and make whining excuses about the judge being politically motivated.
Angelo is right when he points out that political motivation is prevalent in Portugal. This is especially true in high profile cases such as this one where precedent is being set. Anyone who believes that Judge Maria de Melo e Castro didn't take advice from outside her chambers is solely deluding them self.
Presedent john? Could you explain how that works in Portugal?
I'm not having Judge Tugendhat slagged off. Sorry about that, but it won't be allowed to happen.
If you mean precedent then I was refereeing to the unique level of the claim unheard of in any previous such trial. In fact, the nature of the case has set a precedent all on its own as far as Portugal is concerned.
Almost every aspect of Madeleine McCann's case is unprecedented. Perhaps this will be reflected in the unprecedented level of the award against Mr Amaral being allowed to stand, either by refusal of an appeal (and I think it is the only avenue of appeal open) or at appeal.
I think the danger of an appeal is that it is possible the award could be increased rather than decreased.
Almost every aspect of Madeleine McCann's case is unprecedented. Perhaps this will be reflected in the unprecedented level of the award against Mr Amaral being allowed to stand, either by refusal of an appeal (and I think it is the only avenue of appeal open) or at appeal.
I think the danger of an appeal is that it is possible the award could be increased rather than decreased.
If you mean precedent then I was refereeing to the unique level of the claim unheard of in any previous such trial. In fact, the nature of the case has set a precedent all on its own as far as Portugal is concerned.
as I have already posted...if amaral questions the level of the claim then he is accepting that some level of claim is due and therefore admitting liability
I don't think that could ever happen in this case Brietta. Furthermore, if remains are eventually discovered as I expect they will, this could also change the entire centre of gravity of any appeal.
As to any suggestion of outside influence, my first thought when I read the judgement was that it read as if Isabel Duarte had dictated it to her. JMO.
Does anyone actually know who the signatories are for the Amaral Defence Fund?
As everything is open and transparent someone will post a reply to that any moment now, Misty. Probably with a statement of ingoing and outgoing sums.
As to any suggestion of outside influence, my first thought when I read the judgement was that it read as if Isabel Duarte had dictated it to her. JMO.@)(++(* Didn't you once inform this forum that there had never been a miscarriage of justice in Portugal? Now suddenly your legal system is bent as a 9 bob bit and all because of one ruling in favour of a couple of people you don't happen to like very much.
Would you care to share your concerns ?
As everything is open and transparent someone will post a reply to that any moment now, Misty. Probably with a statement of ingoing and outgoing sums.
Normally, GoFundMe donations are made directly into the bank a/c of the fundraiser, but Leanne has chosen to have them paid into the Santander a/c.
If it is discovered the funds are not being used as intended, ie, for legal expenses, who will be liable should contributors wish to sue for fraud?
Almost every aspect of Madeleine McCann's case is unprecedented. Perhaps this will be reflected in the unprecedented level of the award against Mr Amaral being allowed to stand, either by refusal of an appeal (and I think it is the only avenue of appeal open) or at appeal.
I think the danger of an appeal is that it is possible the award could be increased rather than decreased.
Afraid I don't know what the Santander a/c is.
Does this mean that by so doing, she has removed herself from all liability? If so, it sounds a wise move.
As to any suggestion of outside influence, my first thought when I read the judgement was that it read as if Isabel Duarte had dictated it to her. JMO.
So you don't think much of the Portuguese justice system, Montclair?Montclair was always a great champion of all things Portuguese, even claiming there had never been a miscarriage of justice there - country's obviously gone to the dogs in the last few weeks!
Is that in general, or just when the judgement goes against "your boy"?
Sorry, meant the BPI, not Santander (too much sun!).She has stated in black and white exactly what the fund is for - legal costs.
Any contract is between Leanne & GoFundMe, not the recipient of the benefactions. She has asked for donations to be made via an organisation which charge a fee for their services.
I'm not questioning Leanne's motives or trustworthiness in all this. All I want to know is her legal position regarding the donations, should the a/c not be being used for the purposes it claims.
Sorry, meant the BPI, not Santander (too much sun!).
Any contract is between Leanne & GoFundMe, not the recipient of the benefactions. She has asked for donations to be made via an organisation which charge a fee for their services.
I'm not questioning Leanne's motives or trustworthiness in all this. All I want to know is her legal position regarding the donations, should the a/c not be being used for the purposes it claims.
The legal position is that gofundme operates under Californian law. All donations are in the nature of an outright gift, and the money can be used for any purpose whatsoever.It's been suggested by the resident forum know-it-all that all one needs to do is write to the fund manager and ask for details of the accounts - are you game?
That nowithstanding I would expect contributors to this and to the PJGA to be made aware of the financial position of fund. Transparency was promised but so far has been observed in the breach.
It is interesting that so many of those who complain about lack of transparency in the "find madeleine" fund (which is subject to independent scrutiny and audit) are sanguine about the total lack of transparency in the PJGA.
She has stated in black and white exactly what the fund is for - legal costs.
Now where is the equivalent statement of what the other fund is for?
There was a statement by a spokesperson on NZ radio stating it would not be used for legal costs.
It is the ultimate in transparency - so transparent that it is invisible.
Does it mention being used to influence foreign local elections - I don't know - where is it?
The legal position is that gofundme operates under Californian law. All donations are in the nature of an outright gift, and the money can be used for any purpose whatsoever.
That nowithstanding I would expect contributors to this and to the PJGA to be made aware of the financial position of fund. Transparency was promised but so far has been observed in the breach.
It is interesting that so many of those who complain about lack of transparency in the "find madeleine" fund (which is subject to independent scrutiny and audit) are sanguine about the total lack of transparency in the PJGA.
Personally, I have no objection to people paying to have a time-share certificate on a meteor 1 million light-years away from planet Earth, provided they are compos mentis and are doing so using disposable income of no consequence. I can think of numerous ways in which to support people who have no access to clean water on planet Earth, for example, but... to each his own.
Question: what is the tax situation on this issue?
She has stated in black and white exactly what the fund is for - legal costs.
Now where is the equivalent statement of what the other fund is for?
There was a statement by a spokesperson on NZ radio stating it would not be used for legal costs.
It is the ultimate in transparency - so transparent that it is invisible.
Does it mention being used to influence foreign local elections - I don't know - where is it?
http://www.gofundme.com/safety
My objection would be if they were exercising double standards by vociferously criticising those contributing to a time share on the planet Zog.
The tax situation is of interest. Would it be classed as 'unearned income'? and might the Portuguese Revenue Service be thinking about this and asking to see the books?
http://www.gofundme.com/safety
It is a private gift, freely given and not in return for any form of service. Ergo it is not taxable as income.
"Donors should only contribute payments to GoFundMe users they personally know and trust" - hmmm....I neither know Leeanne / Gonc, nor trust either of them as far as I could throw 'em so that's me out at the first hurdle... @)(++(*No surprise there then 8(0(*
Thanks, JP. So in effect it can be used for whatever. I seem to remember that at a time money was being donated for legal expenses to PJGA one of Mr Amaral's lawyers insisting on payment up-front before continuing with the case, maybe that explains it.
No surprise there then 8(0(*I am for something, it just doesn't happen to be a bent ex-cop or his fan club secretary.
Harry S Truman
I don't believe in anti-anything. A man has to have a program. You have to be for something, otherwise you will never get anywhere.
It is a private gift, freely given and not in return for any form of service. Ergo it is not taxable as income.
I am for something, it just doesn't happen to be a bent ex-cop or his fan club secretary.
In terms of which tax authority?
It is difficult to pick that up from your posts. We are all too aware of what you are not for but what you are for does not exactly shine through like a beacon.Your lack of perception is my problem or concern how exactly...?
What on earth is this about?Its a purposely ridiculous post to try to get someone to answer this:
In most jurisdictions. Certainly throughout Europe.
I don't understand, JP.
I expect that the girl who set up this fund is genuine and sincerely hopes to support her hero, Amaral.
My question isn't about her, but is more general: can anyone set up a gofundme account and raise and send money in this day and age without it being questioned anywhere?
Aside from potential laundering scrutiny, wouldn't there be a tax liability or two somewhere along the line?
Here are the official objects of the other fund.
The struck out clause was there up to about Dec 2011 when it was removed.
***********************************
The objects of the Foundation are:
To secure the safe return to her family of Madeleine McCann who was abducted in Praia da Luz, Portugal on Thursday 3rd May 2007; and
To procure that Madeleine's abduction is thoroughly investigated and that her abductors, as well as those who played or play any part in assisting them, are identified and brought to Justice.To provide support, including financial assistance, to Madeleine's family.
***********************************
Why would there be? If I were to say Carana, my dear, I really like you (I do) and I want to give you £1000 (Not going to happen - sorry) - there are no tax consequences for either of us.
I cannot claim any tax relief (it is not wholly / necessarily / exclusive) in relation to a trade or profession and you are not a charity - I am paying you the money as a gift (not in return for some service - don't go there...) so you have no tax liability. There is no VAT liability. There may be some transfer tax - but the amounts are way below the limit.
Leanne is merely acting as a collecting agent -so not liable.
There may possibly be some money laundering issues if the value of a single transaction were more than 15k euros. But as this is a gift, and transactions are channelled through a bank - very very unlikely.
The only issues that I can see would be if Leanne took the money (over 10k euros) cross border in cash without declaring it.
So that's the position - you may not like it but there you go
Ok. I was just curious. So what you're saying is that as they are transactions between private accounts below a certain threshold, there's no tax? Until presumably the money reaches the destination, presumably either the court or the lawyer who would have to declare the income - as he/she would have to do anyway? Is that correct?
@jean-pierre
It appears looking at your definitive up-to-date source that you are right
The third object is stiill there
Is it in the company's Articles of Association? They appear to be as follows according to Companies House following amendment December 2011.
Objects
2B. The objects of the Foundation are:
2B.1.1 To secure the safe return to her family of Madeleine McCann who was abducted in Praia da Luz, Portugal on Thursday 3rd May 2007; and
2B.1.2 To procure that Madeleine's abduction is thoroughly investigated and that her abductors, as well as those who played or play any part in assisting them, are identified and brought to Justice.
2B.2 If the above objects are fulfilled then the objects of the Foundation shall be to pursue such purposes in similar cases arising in the United Kingdom, Portugal or elsewhere.
The powers are interesting.
You can buy the document from CH WebCheck if you fancy 8(0(*
Is it in the company's Articles of Association? They appear to be as follows according to Companies House following amendment December 2011.Yes I know.
Objects
2B. The objects of the Foundation are:
2B.1.1 To secure the safe return to her family of Madeleine McCann who was abducted in Praia da Luz, Portugal on Thursday 3rd May 2007; and
2B.1.2 To procure that Madeleine's abduction is thoroughly investigated and that her abductors, as well as those who played or play any part in assisting them, are identified and brought to Justice.
2B.2 If the above objects are fulfilled then the objects of the Foundation shall be to pursue such purposes in similar cases arising in the United Kingdom, Portugal or elsewhere.
The powers are interesting.
You can buy the document from CH WebCheck if you fancy 8(0(*
Thanks. So probably there is a seperate fund for legal expenditure?
Does that mean that the clause about supporting the family was removed? It's still on the website though?Yes, officially removed at end of 2011, but still on website today.
Well either the McCanns are funding it themselves, or have negotiated contingency fees with their lawyers. In my opinion this is the most likely.IMO there must be a large amount of funding for legal expenditure.
IMO there must be a large amount of funding for legal expenditure.
If contingency fee, why?I remember at least two millionaires providing large money for legal costs.
I remember at least two millionaires providing large money for legal costs.
Possibly - but do you agree that the important thing is that both sides have adequate funding for representation?Far more important is that SY and PJ together solve the case now and I think that may be happening.
Far more important is that SY and PJ together solve the case now and I think that may be happening.
Only then I think will Mr Amaral be content.
I do apologise Pegasus - the mem and arts do not include assistance to the McCanns - you were quite right.
So the fund cannot be being used to fund legal action against Amaral.
They are quite clear as to the uses the fund monies can be put to.
Which puts a rather different perspective on the financial equality question, does it not.
Do we have actual confirmation that Amaral has appealed?Today or Monday 8(0(*
Do we have actual confirmation that Amaral has appealed?
Jean Pierre, you try so hard to be fair. Or perhaps you don't. It doesn't really matter. But I know that you donated the The Amaral Fund in the name of Balance, but call it what you will.
Some persons just don't want to know, or even understand why. So they ignore what you did.
I haven't donated to anything and probably never will. The pound in my pocket is too important to me. And I can't be asked to show loyalty by giving money that I can ill afford, to anyone who is far better off than I am.
I just stick in here, and hope.
After Amaral has lodged his appeal, how long will it be before we know whether his grounds of appeal have been accepted (distinct from when the appeal, if allowed, will be heard)?
Possibly - but do you agree that the important thing is that both sides have adequate funding for representation?
Far more important is that SY and PJ together solve the case now and I think that may be happening.
Only then I think will Mr Amaral be content.
I suggest that you read back about appeals as it seems that you have not yet grasped certain facts. If the first instance judge does not accept the grounds for appeal, she maintains her judgement and she then sends the appeal up to the Tribunal da Relação.
That possibly is the only point you and I agree on J-P.
The law is for everyone regardless; even those we don't like.
It seems not . When amaral is totally quiet we are told he's biding his time...when SY are quiet we are told they are doing nothing...the usual double standards of the deluded
However, the appeal must have substance, and challenge either proven facts or specific points of law.
It will not be sufficient simply to say he doesn't like the judgement.
And here lies the rub - having read the judgement, I cannot see much wriggle room for him.
I think the worse day of his life was the day he was appointed to the McCann investigation.
I find that his recent media spoutings offer an idea of what he might attempt to present...
Amen to thatIt's possible and maybe it requires at first no new evidence just one eureka moment.
However we will have to agree to differ on Amaral.
I think the worse day of his life was the day he was appointed to the McCann investigation.Rubbish - the McCann case made him rich and famous, briefly.
(snip)... Mr Amaral's credit has long since run out. ...(snip)He was certainly highly regarded by the PSD political party when they chose him as their candidate for president of the town of Olhão.
It's possible and maybe it requires at first no new evidence just one eureka moment.
If it is solved I think Mr Amaral will be satisfied, whatever the proven solution turns out to be, justice is all.
Meanwhile it's important to counter ongoing IMO attempts to destroy him.
BTW were meetings Lisbon mid-Jan '11 about this libel case ?
He was certainly highly regarded by the PSD political party when they chose him as their candidate for president of the town of Olhão.
Respected also by the people of Olhão.
The polls in Jan 2011 predicted that he would get 53% of the votes and easily win the election.
That's something the PSD had never done in Olhão since '74.
Rubbish - the McCann case made him rich and famous, briefly.
Exactly - think how happy he might have been to have never heard of the McCanns - like many others of us, actually.
It's possible and maybe it requires at first no new evidence just one eureka moment.
If it is solved I think Mr Amaral will be satisfied, whatever the proven solution turns out to be, justice is all.
Meanwhile it's important to counter ongoing IMO attempts to destroy him.
BTW were meetings Lisbon mid-Jan '11 about this libel case ?
I think the worse day of his life was the day he was appointed to the McCann investigation.
Do you think Amaral's attempts to destroy the McCanns, ultimately by having them rot in a Portuguese jail for the next 25 years for a crime someone else committed against their daughter, should simply be brushed aside/disregarded/ignorned?
What crime did you have in mind ? The police haven't yet determined that a crime has been committed.
What crime do the police say has been committed?
Crimes unknown.
There is no trace of Madeleine.
But abduction seems top of the bill as one.
I cannot conceive how she could have vanished without crimes having been committed.
Can you?
Got out of the apartment and wandered?.........met with an accident re hole made during roadworks which were later filled in?
Wasn`t this mentioned as "possible" on a thread somewhere?
I find your "saw an opportunity to get rich on the back of a missing child" by writing a book difficult to understand.
Do I take it that you see the McCanns attempt to enforce their legitimate legal rights through the Portuguese courts as attempts to "destroy him"? How very melodramatic.
Who or what forced him (having failed to bring a prosecution) to write a book and make a documentary accusing two grieving parents of crimes, and attempting to damage their reputations.
Face facts - he saw an opportunity to get rich on the back of a missing child - he lost. Tough.
I take it you are happy to have a bent, greedy thuggish ex cop as your role model? Happy days.
I recall reading in the files (somewhere) that roadworks were uncovered and searched and no trace of a body was found.
Besides, Kate firmly squashed woke and wandered ...
I find your "saw an opportunity to get rich on the back of a missing child" by writing a book difficult to understand.
Do you also believe the first of its usual extensions, which that Cristovao the same?
I find your "saw an opportunity to get rich on the back of a missing child" by writing a book difficult to understand.
Do you also believe the first of its usual extensions, which that Cristovao the same?
What is difficult to understand? He did write a book. And he did get rich.I would be interested to know on what date you claim he first decided to get rich by writing a book - do you mean Oct 2nd? Or are you going so far back of 4th May?
The reason the book sold is because it was written by the (ex) cop in charge of the investigation, and he had become well known during the case. So his book had more "credibility" than Cristavo's.
The case had attracted lot of interest.
The McCanns were spectacularly made arguidos in the disappearance of their daughter (but only because Amaral could not understand what was evidence and what was not).
Given all that has come out since - even one of the co respondants lawyers said that much of the book had been made up - I find it difficult to understand the posters on here who think Amaral is terribly hard done by and I would love to debate the reasons why.
He took a risk by breaking the rules (how many other ex cps have written about their cases) and he got caught. Tough.
I would be interested to know on what date you claim he first decided to get rich by writing a book - do you mean Oct 2nd? Or are you going so far back of 4th May?
I recall reading in the files (somewhere) that roadworks were uncovered and searched and no trace of a body was found.
Besides, Kate firmly squashed woke and wandered ...
Who knows. Obviously before the 28th July 2008. Likely to have been written during the preceding few months.You would need to compare with other cases where the SIO was forced out at a critical point in the investigation.
The rules are there for a reason. Can you name any other books written by ex cops about European cases they failed to solve and where the suspects they accuse of having committed the crime did not even reach the "charging" stage?
There is absolutely no doubt that Goncalo Amaral enjoyed a celebrity lifestyle and income directly as a result of his involvement with Madeleine McCann's case.
There was precedent for former police officer friends to write about cases of missing children and do very well financially as a result.
In Cristovao's writings about Madeleine ... he was at pains to introduce fictional detectives which apparently made his book an ordinary whodunnit ... Mr Amaral did not even pay lip service to anything other than his certainties being the whole truth.
Even if he is allowed to appeal, which we should hear about pretty soon ... he is going to have to think about getting himself a real job to pay his way ... as his career using Madeleine McCann as a cash cow and her parents as punch bags would be in my opinion ... at an end.
Do I take it that you see the McCanns attempt to enforce their legitimate legal rights through the Portuguese courts as attempts to "destroy him"? How very melodramatic.
Who or what forced him (having failed to bring a prosecution) to write a book and make a documentary accusing two grieving parents of crimes, and attempting to damage their reputations.
Face facts - he saw an opportunity to get rich on the back of a missing child - he lost. Tough.
I take it you are happy to have a bent, greedy thuggish ex cop as your role model? Happy days.
Gosh! was he a member of that secret society too? Now they really were something else."thuggish" is presumably referring to the supposed letter?
Exactly - think how happy he might have been to have never heard of the McCanns - like many others of us, actually.We would all be happier if we'd never heard of Amaral and the McCanns for sure, because that would mean a little girl never went missing. Amaral used her to make a name for himself, if his life is a misery subsequently then he only has his own greed and lack of moral judgement to blame.
We would all be happier if we'd never heard of Amaral and the McCanns for sure, because that would mean a little girl never went missing. Amaral used her to make a name for himself, if his life is a misery subsequently then he only has his own greed and lack of moral judgement to blame.The irony is if Brit police including the Met glance through forums on this case they will see desperate attempts to discredit an investigation which they the Brit police were an important and essential part of.
The irony is if Brit police including the Met glance through forums on this case they will see desperate attempts to discredit an investigation which they the Brit police were an important and essential part of.
The irony is if Brit police including the Met glance through forums on this case they will see desperate attempts to discredit an investigation which they the Brit police were an important and essential part of.
I think you misunderstood the post. The investigation continually being discredited is the original one, in which UK police participated.
I think you misunderstood the post. The investigation continually being discredited is the original one, in which UK police participated.
The investigation is not being discredited - just Amarals interpretation and subsequent actions.
No problem with the FSS, or Grime, or Harrison, Or Pryor.
Do have a problem with some of the PJs list of questions, which were specifically lying about the evidence they claimed to have. That was stupid.
Otherwise, investigation was what it was - and led the police up the wrong path. Only Amaral found a pot of gold at the end of it.
I think you misunderstood the post. The investigation continually being discredited is the original one, in which UK police participated.They may have participated but there is no evidence that they shared amaral's views..in fact the archiving report didn't share amaral's views
They may have participated but there is no evidence that they shared amaral's views..in fact the archiving report didn't share amaral's viewsWould you accept evidence from the files?
'celebrity lifestyle' for Amaral ???
On what basis do you say that ?
Now that can certainly be applied to the mccanns in the first few years after Madeleine's disappearance.
I think you misunderstood the post. The investigation continually being discredited is the original one, in which UK police participated.
Would you accept evidence from the files?
From the shelved investigation, Mark Harrison's report bears particularly close scrutiny, and especially the reality, distinct from Amaral's (badly skewed!) misinterpretation of it ....
I am puzzled, Pegasus.I was referring to the PJ investigation from 4th May to 2nd Oct 2007 and the numerous Brit police who were part of it. And the irony that peeps who criticise Mr Amaral's investigation are criticising the good Brit police who worked hard with Mr Amaral. Sorry I should have made it clearer that the Met assisted Mr Amaral by arranging for experts to help him. BTW I am on the side of all 3 investigations (Amaral PJ, current PJ, current SY).
Do you happen to be reading this forum in a mirror? Because the only people seeming to be desperate to discredit the investigation are those of the "anti" persuasion, here and elsewhere.
Among those on forum who do not hate the mccanns and constantly wish them ill, I cannot see anything but a broad welcome for the renewed police investigation.
Strange.
When has accidental death in the apartment been disproved ?
When has accidental death in the apartment been disproved ?
The great thing about disembodied theories is that anyone can pluck them out of thin air and they can't be disproved.
Key point is that there is not a shred of evidence to sustain such a supposition.
That's all it is, a supposition ....
So what the hell is the abduction ?
Not one shred of evidence, yet purported as fact by the mccanns.
There is a word to describe that, three letters beginning with an 'L'.
As to accidental death, there is circumstantial evidenceevidence, hence mccanns attempt to bring it up in the trial.
Didn't work, did it.😩😀😀
It's the only alternative explanation of Madeleine's disappearance ....
Abduction certainly isn't.
Unless of course you are a mccann or one of their supporters.
Since without abduction, what are you left with ? 👇
It's not a question of what anyone's left with.
It's a question of what happened to Madeleine.
The present Portguese/Anglo investigation is investigating that she was abducted.
The first enquiry reached all the wrong conclusions.
I was referring to the PJ investigation from 4th May to 2nd Oct 2007 and the numerous Brit police who were part of it. And the irony that peeps who criticise Mr Amaral's investigation are criticising the good Brit police who worked hard with Mr Amaral. Sorry I should have made it clearer that the Met assisted Mr Amaral by arranging for experts to help him. BTW I am on the side of all 3 investigations (Amaral PJ, current PJ, current SY).
Working on the premise that the nature of the crime if any is unknown one could deduce that nothing is proven or disproven, other than a child vanished sometime on May 3rd 2007.
Wrong.
It hasn't been established how she disappeared.
Do keep up with reality, ferryman.
They may have participated but there is no evidence that they shared amaral's views..in fact the archiving report didn't share amaral's viewsProvided to Mr Amaral by a British expert from the MCIU (possibly the Met?), I removed names.
Provided to Mr Amaral by a British expert from the DCIU (possibly the Met?), I removed names.
"Conclusion
In the confusion following the disappearance of Madeleine it would be possible that one of the men or --- 'escaped' to join in the searches again later.
Analyst ---- ---
DCIU"
so is amaral...the proven liar...the source for thisIt's by the MCIU who are Brits and it's in the files
It's by the DCIU who are Brits and it's in the files
proof is a relative word...absolute...beyond reasonable doubt...balance of probabilities...so it is possible that abduction has been proved
When are any of you going to come to the realisation that Gonçalo Amaral did not carry out the investigation all by himself? It was not a one man team. All of your arguments of misunderstanding the evidence, etc. do not hold water as long as you continue to assert that Gonçalo Amaral made all of the decisions.Amaral wrote the book...It accepted by all sensible people...both sceptics and supporters that amaral misunderstood the evidence...no doubt others in the PJ misunderstood it as well
When are any of you going to come to the realisation that Gonçalo Amaral did not carry out the investigation all by himself? It was not a one man team. All of your arguments of misunderstanding the evidence, etc. do not hold water as long as you continue to assert that Gonçalo Amaral made all of the decisions.
It's by the DCIU who are Brits and it's in the files@dave1 Sorry didn't note link but source is apenso 2 rel sep 07 p14 last para
@dave1 Sorry didn't note link but source is apenso 2 rel sep 07 p14 last para
If you don't realise how far out your assertions are then you cannot possibly be taken seiouslyI disagree with much of his theory but object to the way he is attacked.
Do you consider that the conclusion was part of the original analysis or added afterwards by another party?apenso 2 rel sep 07 p14 last para
apenso 2 rel sep 07 p14 last para
Text light and dark is common on black white photocopies
I disagree with much of his theory but object to the way he is attacked.I object to the way the McCanns are attacked...amaral MUST realise now that his claims are not supported by evidence as he claimed...he should admit this
apenso 2 rel sep 07 p14 last para
Text light and dark is common on black white photocopies
so this claim may well be a misrepresentation perhaps misty could supply the link...is there a translation
so this claim may well be a misrepresentation perhaps misty could supply the link...is there a translationThat is a Brit police document probably by the Met and you seem to be claiming it may well be a misrepresentation?
That is a Brit police document probably by the Met and you seem to be claiming it may well be a misrepresentation?
That is a Brit police document probably by the Met and you seem to be claiming it may well be a misrepresentation?
http://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/PJ/BRIGADE-OF-INFORMATION.htm
*snip*
The men's movements, however, are more difficult to pinpoint.
Gerald was seen and spoken to by Neil Berry and Raj Malu. They heard him calling for Madeleine when they were sitting on Neil's balcony, not far from the McCann's apartment. They both went down to talk to Gerald and helped in the search.
Both David Payne and Matthew Oldfield were seen by Emma Knights when she was on her way to the beach, the search area to which she was assigned by Lyndsey Johnson (child care director and search coordinator).
At about 01.00 Matthew was with John Hill (resort manager) when they knocked on Jeremy Wilkins's door to ask if he had seen anything.
At about 23.30 a white fair haired man aged about 30, one of the friends of the McCann group was seen by Valerie Kerr and her family when he asked them if they had seen Madeleine. They were near to the chapel. Valerie and Laura returned to their apartment, changed clothes and went to help with the search.
Conclusion
In the confusion following the disappearance of Madeleine it would be possible that one of the men or Fiona Payne 'escaped' to join in the searches again later.
Analyst 7792 Eaton
====================================================
You will have to look at the original Portuguese translation to see the differing print density.
It's a british police document.
IMO it's one of the sources which was used to develop one part of a theory which was later repeated in a book.
That is a Brit police document probably by the Met and you seem to be claiming it may well be a misrepresentation?
How does anyone manage to look at a common feature of photocopy black white machine, and distort it into fake British police document forged by Mr Amaral using a false name Sra Comido and cleverly misspelling the translation to look english?
I will ask again..what do you think it means and how does it prove the UK police supported amarals theory ..it doesn't and you are totally mistakenThis MCIU document is by one of the many british police experts who were part of the investigation, it's a document that was read.
So, I guess Ammy has left it to the last possible day to lodge his appeal then.
In the absence of anything to give the current status:having come out all guns blazing.....he's gone ever so quiet...read into that what you will
He has lodged the papers and dosh already.
He will do it on Monday.
He has successfully applied for an extension to time.
He isn't going to bother.
In the absence of anything to give the current status:I'm pretty confident that the moment Ammy lodges an appeal it will be all over the internet before you can say "tucking fosser".
He has lodged the papers and dosh already.
He will do it on monday.
He has successfully applied for an extension to time.
He isn't going to bother.
I'm pretty confident that the moment Ammy lodges an appeal it will be all over the internet before you can say "tucking fosser".as long as none of his legal team are struck down with ebola
as long as none of his legal team are struck down with ebolawho are his lawyers?
who are his lawyers?
as long as none of his legal team are struck down with ebolaor an upset tummy
having come out all guns blazing.....he's gone ever so quiet...read into that what you will
I'm pretty confident that the moment Ammy lodges an appeal it will be all over the internet before you can say "tucking fosser".
You may be right and you may be wrong; but you know you're gonna miss me when I'm gone, down the Rock Island Line.......................What a clever little boy you are.
I wouldn't say "tucking fosser". I can swear properly 8(>((
who are his lawyers?...please
...please
...please
I think it may be this guy,Miguel Cruz Rodrigues ... well it was in January this year ... but who knows?
Nothing; he said he would appeal either he will or he won't. We will find out eventually.
So the long and the short is that we still don't have confirmation that Amaral will (be allowed to!) appeal, making something of a mockery of the title of this thread?
ALL GOOD THINGS COME TO THOSE WHO WAIT. 8(*(
I object to the way the McCanns are attacked...amaral MUST realise now that his claims are not supported by evidence as he claimed...he should admit this
BTW, the McCanns' claims of an abduction are supported by what evidence?
If the McCanns are attacked, they have no one to blame but themselves for being negligent with their children and uncooperative with the investigation. Explain to me why would the parents take weeks to organise a balloon in memory of their daughter's disappearance when she could have turned up at anytime?
I suspect the confusion is between appeal and meta-appeal.
Amaral has an automatic right to a meta-appeal which is an appeal for the right to take the verdict of the court of first instance up to the next rung.
That will be heard and either accepted or rejected.
If it is rejected, the McCanns will be outright winners at first instance.
If it is accepted, then everything goes into limbo for however long until a date is set for Amaral's appeal to be heard.
Is that how it works?
The absence of evidence of anything else.
Pure and simple.
I suspect the confusion is between appeal and meta-appeal.
Amaral has an automatic right to a meta-appeal which is an appeal for the right to take the verdict of the court of first instance up to the next rung.
That will be heard and either accepted or rejected.
If it is rejected, the McCanns will be outright winners at first instance.
If it is accepted, then everything goes into limbo for however long until a date is set for Amaral's appeal to be heard.
Is that how it works?
Nothing?
On a forum where every word spoken by the McCanns ...every action however slight...draws an inference...your response to my post is...nothing..
So what can we read into that re you....the answer is not...nothing
No, that is not how it works! Although this has been explained I don't know how many times, you still don't seem to understand. I will try to explain one last time:
Gonçalo Amaral will submit his appeal to the judge of the first instance. She will take into consideration his arguments. If she does agree with his arguments, she can then change her verdict (I don't think that this happens very often though). If she does not accept them, her judgement remains. The story does not stop here, do you understand? The judge then sends the appeal to the higher court, the Tribunal da Relação.
Thinking about that...
If the judge has to wait for all the paperwork (appellant and respondent) before submitting it to the appeals court, then it will be early-ish July before it is officially submitted, and if it is the appeals court that has to book dates for the hearing, I would find it unlikely to take place until after the summer recess.
From what I've been able to gather, there are - limited - grounds on which she could dismiss one, but otherwise the process moves up (with a non-binding legal opinion), so I have no problem in understanding that.
However, and you may have missed it, Montclair, but I had asked you where you found the idea that the a quo judge can modify her verdict.
Going on past history I think Mr Amaral's present legal team will string out the process for as long as that can be done, then no doubt their successors will follow suit.
I don't think he was ever in any great hurry to have this court case resolved ... and with the recent judgement I am beginning to see why that was ... he has gone through some of the best legal minds in Portugal who perhaps gave him advice not to his liking. He's in no hurry as long as loyal supporters are picking up his tabs.
Read into it what you like squire.
Going on past history I think Mr Amaral's present legal team will string out the process for as long as that can be done, then no doubt their successors will follow suit.
I don't think he was ever in any great hurry to have this court case resolved ... and with the recent judgement I am beginning to see why that was ... he has gone through some of the best legal minds in Portugal who perhaps gave him advice not to his liking. He's in no hurry as long as loyal supporters are picking up his tabs.
...If donations continue at the same rate ...Most of the Brit Public don't know about this fund yet. What will happen to the donation rate when the major UK TV stations and newspapers all run stories about the 25K target being reached so quickly.
Most of the Brit Public don't know about this fund yet. What will happen to the donation rate when the major UK TV stations and newspapers all run stories about the 25K target being reached so quickly.
(edited)
Most of the Brit Public don't know about this fund yet. What will happen to the donation rate when the major UK TV stations and newspapers all run stories about the 25K target being reached so quickly.
(edited)
Most of the Brit Public don't know about this fund yet. What will happen to the donation rate when the major UK TV stations and newspapers all run stories about the 25K target being reached so quickly.It wasn't that big a deal. How much money was sent in for Madeleine in the first month after she went missing?
(edited)
Most of the Brit Public don't know about this fund yet. What will happen to the donation rate when the major UK TV stations and newspapers all run stories about the 25K target being reached so quickly.
(edited)
No, that is not how it works! Although this has been explained I don't know how many times, you still don't seem to understand. I will try to explain one last time:
Gonçalo Amaral will submit his appeal to the judge of the first instance. She will take into consideration his arguments. If she does agree with his arguments, she can then change her verdict (I don't think that this happens very often though). If she does not accept them, her judgement remains. The story does not stop here, do you understand? The judge then sends the appeal to the higher court, the Tribunal da Relação.
I think you need to find it how it works, then offer an explanation (distinct from an "explanation") ...
As long as the appellant conforms to the formalities, the first instance judge cannot stop it from going to a higher court!!!!!!! What kind of justice is it when the first instance decides the appeal on her judgement and stops the appellant from appealing, especially when there is the amount of € 550.000,00 plus interest at stake. She can't say: I'm going to make you pay a half a million and you cannot appeal. I give up trying to get this into your head.
As long as the appellant conforms to the formalities, the first instance judge cannot stop it from going to a higher court!!!!!!! What kind of justice is it when the first instance decides the appeal on her judgement and stops the appellant from appealing, especially when there is the amount of € 550.000,00 plus interest at stake. She can't say: I'm going to make you pay a half a million and you cannot appeal. I give up trying to get this into your head.
In the UK a single judge initially decides whether an appeal has merit ( not the trial judge) and if he refuses an appeal it will go to two judges to decide.
If what is being posted is correct in respect of Portugal, allowing the trial judge to decide the merits or otherwise of an appeal seems ludicrous...even bonkers!! %#&%4%
In the UK a single judge initially decides whether an appeal has merit ( not the trial judge) and if he refuses an appeal it will go to two judges to decide.
If what is being posted is correct in respect of Portugal, allowing the trial judge to decide the merits or otherwise of an appeal seems ludicrous...even bonkers!! %#&%4%
Seems to me that Amaral has a great big publicity machine backing himWould you like a complete list of the various PR companies he uses in the UK and in Portugal?
Would you like a complete list of the various PR companies he uses in the UK and in Portugal?
The list is long, I may have to split it into several posts
Would you like a complete list of the various PR companies he uses in the UK and in Portugal?You can start your list with that woman whose TV couch Amaral is often to be found snuggling up on.
The list is long, I may have to split it into several posts
You can start your list with that woman whose TV couch Amaral is often to be found snuggling up on.
You can start your list with that woman whose TV couch Amaral is often to be found snuggling up on.
Were she a very young woman it would be "Ammy" with an ammy now there's droll.You're obsessed with the term "ammy" - as I've never left the village I was born in I have no idea what other meaning this word has other than as a term of "endearment" for a bent ex-cop.
8(*(
From what I've been able to gather, there are - limited - grounds on which she could dismiss one, but otherwise the process moves up (with a non-binding legal opinion), so I have no problem in understanding that.
However, and you may have missed it, Montclair, but I had asked you where you found the idea that the a quo judge can modify her verdict.
You're obsessed with the term "ammy" - as I've never left the village I was born in I have no idea what other meaning this word has other than as a term of "endearment" for a bent ex-cop.
Sorry not answering but I forgot. It was the lawyer daughter of a a friend of mine who told me that the appeal goes to the quo judge who has the chance to modify her verdict, not that it happens very often. I didn't know that before she told me.did she also tell you that all questions to suspects have to be approved by the judge
Hardly old stick knowing your track record on here 8(0(*What are you accusing me of now?
Sorry not answering but I forgot. It was the lawyer daughter of a a friend of mine who told me that the appeal goes to the quo judge who has the chance to modify her verdict, not that it happens very often. I didn't know that before she told me.
You can start your list with that woman whose TV couch Amaral is often to be found snuggling up on.Do you mean Julia Penheiro? Dear Julia?
Do you mean Julia Penheiro? Dear Julia?
http://tse1.mm.bing.net/th?id=JN.Bbr4YsF65EOgYs%2bkJaJamg&w=65&h=105&c=7&rs=1&qlt=90&pid=3.1&rm=2
(http://tse1.mm.bing.net/th?id=JN.Bbr4YsF65EOgYs%2bkJaJamg&w=65&h=105&c=7&rs=1&qlt=90&pid=3.1&rm=2)
She is one of the crowd. One of the set.
Self satisfied woman IMO
Thanks for answering, Montclair... but could you ask your friend who is a friend of a lawyer's daughter where that idea came from? I've tried to wade through the relevant Articles, but I'm still none the wiser.
did she also tell you that all questions to suspects have to be approved by the judge
It is the daughter of my friend who is a lawyer, not the daughter of a lawyer.
That Amaral and his team have taken it (pretty much) to the wire of the deadline for appeals to submit tends to suggest they are finding it trickyNah, they're just playing games, making the McCanns sweat, just as I predicted they would.
Nah, they're just playing games, making the McCanns sweat, just as I predicted they would.
I'm sure the McCanns aren't sweating. Their success in the courts has been legendary - well, those cases which got to court. Tony Bennett - a win. Goncalo Amaral's book banning - lose. Defamation - win......so far. It must be their turn to win on appeal this time?
I'm sure the McCanns aren't sweating. Their success in the courts has been legendary - well, those cases which got to court. Tony Bennett - a win. Goncalo Amaral's book banning - lose. Defamation - win......so far. It must be their turn to win on appeal this time?Whether they are sweating or not, it is obviously Gonc's greatest wish to cause as much discomfort to the McCanns as possible, hence leaving it to the very last day to appeal. The man's a player.
Whether they are sweating or not, it is obviously Gonc's greatest wish to cause as much discomfort to the McCanns as possible, hence leaving it to the very last day to appeal. The man's a player.
Legal experts is it currently illegal to sell a copy of this book in England?
2nd hand not new, in portugese, and not-for-profit.
Its amazing the legal peeps attacking Mr Amaral probably get £40 a hour but their research preperation is not so good IMO anyone on this forum could do better finding differences.
I'm sure the McCanns aren't sweating. Their success in the courts has been legendary - well, those cases which got to court. Tony Bennett - a win. Goncalo Amaral's book banning - lose. Defamation - win......so far. It must be their turn to win on appeal this time?
Why do you have to turn this thread into another of your personal attacks on the McCanns. Your hatred is so pronounced
I'm sure the McCanns aren't sweating. Their success in the courts has been legendary - well, those cases which got to court. Tony Bennett - a win. Goncalo Amaral's book banning - lose. Defamation - win......so far. It must be their turn to win on appeal this time?
I'm sure the McCanns aren't sweating. Their success in the courts has been legendary - well, those cases which got to court. Tony Bennett - a win. Goncalo Amaral's book banning - lose. Defamation - win......so far. It must be their turn to win on appeal this time?
What 'legendary' success are you referring to? AFAIK they've only had court cases with two people.
And didn't Bennett put himself in court - for contempt? It was his own choice to break his promises to the court.
(from memory so am happy to be corrected if necessary)
The one occasion the McCanns were not represented in court (that they lost)!
The parties are not present in court when the appeals go to the higher court. AFAIK, the judges study the written appeals and arguments, so it is the same for all.
I do recall that when the book was first banned and the injunction set in place by the McCanns and their lawyers, that this was done in secret. The interested parties only found out about it in the press!
The parties are not present in court when the appeals go to the higher court. AFAIK, the judges study the written appeals and arguments, so it is the same for all.
I do recall that when the book was first banned and the injunction set in place by the McCanns and their lawyers, that this was done in secret. The interested parties only found out about it in the press!
Who are these "legal peeps"?I don't know who does research for cases.
Another thought that occurs is that with this massive financial support Amaral now enjoys, there will be a huge weight of expectation on him to deliver.Yes, there is no way Gonc can back out of an appeal now, he might have chosen to play the pity card and cite lack of funds as a reason for not appealing but he now no longer has that option. Every silver lining has a cloud.
Maybe he will.
But the fund, while ensuring equality of arms, might bring its own pressures.
I don't know who does research for cases.
Is the case decided on differences between the files and the book/film?
No. Two things only.Makes it hard to see what the grounds for an appeal will be doesn't it?
1. Did Amaral break the rules by using information gathered while case co-cordinator to write his book? The judge says he did because he published his book just three days after the release of the files.
2. Were the McCanns entitled to the presumption of innocence? The judge said they were entitled to be presumed innocent by Amaral as he is a retired policeman and is as such still bound by the rules applied to those involved in the Judicial process.
Yes, there is no way Gonc can back out of an appeal now, he might have chosen to play the pity card and cite lack of funds as a reason for not appealing but he now no longer has that option. Every silver lining has a cloud.Simple answer: The recent GFM appeal was started after the decision to appeal was made.
Simple answer: The recent GFM appeal was started after the decision to appeal was made.So? He could have cited a lack of funds at any point up until the expiry of the appeal deadline as a get-out. He can't now!
Makes it hard to see what the grounds for an appeal will be doesn't it?
Why was a new fund started (which apparently feeds into the extant one anyway)?
I'm no legal expert, so my opinion counts for nothing. The questions I have are as follows. As the files had been made public when the book was published is it relevant when he wrote it? Does the right to the presumption of innocence apply to everyone or only to suspects? Are retired policemen still expected to uphold this principle?The files don't draw the conclusions Amaral draws in his book do they? The right to the presumption of innocence applies to everyone, but I don't see what difference that makes in this case, and yes, I believe ex-policemen are expected to uphold this principle, why wouldn't they be?
Why was a new fund started (which apparently feeds into the extant one anyway)?
So? He could have cited a lack of funds at any point up until the expiry of the appeal deadline as a get-out. He can't now!He decided to appeal. Translation: he is not looking for a "getout".
He decided to appeal. Translation: he is not looking for a "getout".For all you know his statement about appealing made shortly after the judgement could simply have been an act of bravado, an action that he never intended to pursue, citing a lack of funds as the stumbling block, which is an option no longer available to him. Still, he has nothing to lose, apart from whatever remaining shred of credibility he clings to, and a whole bunch of his fanclub's dosh.
Because The Portuguese weren't interested in helping him?
And yet that's where he is supposed to be a national hero?I'd like to see some evidence of his national hero status. Has his face appeared on a stamp yet??
I'd like to see some evidence of his national hero status. Has his face appeared on a stamp yet??
Nope. But a Stamp might appear on his Face one day.@)(++(*
For all you know his statement about appealing made shortly after the judgement could simply have been an act of bravado, an action that he never intended to pursue, citing a lack of funds as the stumbling block, which is an option no longer available to him. Still, he has nothing to lose, apart from whatever remaining shred of credibility he clings to, and a whole bunch of his fanclub's dosh.
Nope. But a Stamp might appear on his Face one day.
Because The Portuguese weren't interested in helping him?
I'd like to see some evidence of his national hero status. Has his face appeared on a stamp yet??I have some evidence of high respect for him at the top level of a national political party.
I have some evidence of high respect for him at the top level of a national political party.@)(++(*
And locally by real people in Olhão.
His selection as their candidate by the Partido Social Democrata indicated great respect by them for him.
And his amazing 53% in the pre-election poll shows the huge local public respect for him.
I would like to see him on the UK £1 stamp.
@)(++(*Thankyou for raising this important issue.
Well now that we know Gonc is a hugely popular national Portuguese hero it really does make you wonder why there hasn't been a fund of at least double the size of the UK one. Surely not everyone in Portugal is THAT strapped for a few euros?
Thankyou for raising this important issue.I'm not sure how many Portuguese people read this forum but I suppose every little helps *pats bum*
Portugese people can easily donate directly to Projecto Justiça Gonçalo Amaral
http://pjga.blogspot.co.uk/
Thankyou for raising this important issue.
Portugese people can easily donate directly to Projecto Justiça Gonçalo Amaral
http://pjga.blogspot.co.uk/
As neither fund is a registered charity, I don't see why anyone of any nationality can't or shouldn't donate to either if they feel so inclined.... But why create a second one?There is only one fund for Mr Amaral's legal defence it is Projecto Justiça Gonçalo Amaral.
There is only one fund for Mr Amaral's legal defence it is Projecto Justiça Gonçalo Amaral.Have those funds already been transferred and what funds from the PJGA fund have been withdrawn?
All donations to the UK gofundme appeal are transferred directly into that fund's bank account.
Totally transparent.
There is only one fund for Mr Amaral's legal defence it is Projecto Justiça Gonçalo Amaral.
All donations to the UK gofundme appeal are transferred directly into that fund's bank account.
Totally transparent.
I have some evidence of high respect for him at the top level of a national political party.
And locally by real people in Olhão.
His selection as their candidate by the Partido Social Democrata indicated great respect by them for him.
And his amazing 53% in the pre-election poll shows the huge local public respect for him.
I would like to see him on the UK £1 stamp.
The files don't draw the conclusions Amaral draws in his book do they? The right to the presumption of innocence applies to everyone, but I don't see what difference that makes in this case, and yes, I believe ex-policemen are expected to uphold this principle, why wouldn't they be?
Amaral takes one of the possibilities from the files as his thesis and attempts to prove that it is the correct thesis. The judge didn't rule on the correctness or otherwise of his conclusion, she just said it upset the McCanns. The presumption of innocence was ruled upon, so it's very important. I don't know if an ex policeman has to uphold the presumption of innocence of everyone or just of suspects.Well if an ex-policeman doesn't have to uphold the presumption of innocence of everyone then that means he is able to accuse everyone EXCEPT actual suspects of criminal acts, is that just and fair?
Well if an ex-policeman doesn't have to uphold the presumption of innocence of everyone then that means he is able to accuse everyone EXCEPT actual suspects of criminal acts, is that just and fair?
Have those funds already been transferred and what funds from the PJGA fund have been withdrawn?Up to 31 May £23910 had been paid from gofundme's bank to the BPI PJGA account.
Up to 31 May £23910 had been paid from gofundme's bank to the BPI PJGA account.I have no idea - you claimed that the Gonc Fund was completely transparent so that's why I asked the question, I assumed the answer would be readily forthcoming.
What is the corresponding figure for whatever fund pays the legal expenses of those who oppose Mr Amaral ?
Hmmm. Would you care to elaborate on those points, Pegasus?His selection as mayoral candidate shows high regard by a major national political party.
Amaral takes one of the possibilities from the files as his thesis and attempts to prove that it is the correct thesis. The judge didn't rule on the correctness or otherwise of his conclusion, she just said it upset the McCanns. The presumption of innocence was ruled upon, so it's very important. I don't know if an ex policeman has to uphold the presumption of innocence of everyone or just of suspects.
His selection as mayoral candidate shows high regard by a major national political party.
And 53% in pre-election poll in shows the high regard of him by people of Olhão.
(I got some dates wrong but the high regard stands)
I explain by saying that the Conservative party had and still has very high regard for their Brighton candidate. The proof is that they selected him over all others. It is the same that the Partido Social Democrata had and still has high regard for Mr G Amaral. The proof is that they selected him as mayoral candidate over all others. I don't know who conducted the opinion poll but someone at the top of the national party talked of it so I am sure it is legit.
So what happened? Why did they drop him if he was such a favourite?David Cameron had a quiet word...
David Cameron had a quiet word...
I can see your question... but it's not just that he's any old ex-cop, he was the coordinator and therefore could be assumed to know what he was talking about.
There must be all kinds of permutations... What would be the situation if he accused Mr Joe Blow? If Mr Blow had made an innocuous statement, but which appeared to Amaral as highly suspicious due to gut feeling... should those suspicions be made public? What if Mr Blow had never even been officially interviewed? Does that change anything?
Loads of people can become "persons of interest" at some point during a major investigation... It doesn't mean that they dunnit, though, does it? Nor that their names should be dragged through the mud as if they had done. And in particularly emotive cases such as the disappearance of a child, or even the suspected rape / murder of an adult... you and / or members of your family can be exposed to misguided vigilante action.
How on earth is that considered "normal" in a civilised society?
So what happened? Why did they drop him if he was such a favourite?Hypothetically imagine how annoyed you are if you are highly regarded candidate in any UK local election and predicted to win then suddenly whoosh sorry you are being replaced for no reason bye.
I suppose he may have seen himself as being in the same position as a whistle blower. He thought there was unprecedented support for the Tapas 9 from the UK. He thought the secret services were present. He decided at some point that UK police were only there to protect the McCanns. He believed there was political pressure on the PJ. When he voiced his concerns he was removed from the investigation. He became upset because the PJ didn't support him. That seems to be why he decided to write his book.
Hypothetically imagine how annoyed you are if you are highly regarded candidate in any UK local election and predicted to win then suddenly whoosh sorry you are being replaced for no reason bye.
Hypothetically imagine how annoyed you are if you are highly regarded candidate in any UK local election and predicted to win then suddenly whoosh sorry you are being replaced for no reason bye.
Mr Amaral has stated what he says happened.
I suppose he may have seen himself as being in the same position as a whistle blower. He thought there was unprecedented support for the Tapas 9 from the UK. He thought the secret services were present. He decided at some point that UK police were only there to protect the McCanns. He believed there was political pressure on the PJ. When he voiced his concerns he was removed from the investigation. He became upset because the PJ didn't support him. That seems to be why he decided to write his book.
Paranoid you mean. And a touch delusional.
That would be the view of some, others might say he was right.
His removal followed accusations of UK interference in the case.
I suppose he may have seen himself as being in the same position as a whistle blower. He thought there was unprecedented support for the Tapas 9 from the UK. He thought the secret services were present. He decided at some point that UK police were only there to protect the McCanns. He believed there was political pressure on the PJ. When he voiced his concerns he was removed from the investigation. He became upset because the PJ didn't support him. That seems to be why he decided to write his book.if that is all true then he sounds like a paranoid [ censored word ]. No wonder he's so popular with the "sceptic" community.
Others might say he was responsible for the leaks. Although his Editor thinks he made it all up.
Which ever which way, he has to file an Appeal by tomorrow.
I explain by saying that the Conservative party had and still has very high regard for their Brighton candidate. The proof is that they selected him over all others. It is the same that the Partido Social Democrata had and still has high regard for Mr G Amaral. The proof is that they selected him as mayoral candidate over all others. I don't know who conducted the opinion poll but someone at the top of the national party talked of it so I am sure it is legit.
So you haven't found anything to substantiate that?
I had a look as well.
Setting aside blog entries from his fan club, about all I can find is from Portugal News:
Ex-Maddie cop runs for mayor
in News · 17-01-2009 00:00:00 · 0 Comments
Gonçalo Amaralo, former detective in the Madeleine McCann disappearance case and author of the controversial book ‘Maddie: The Truth about the Lie’ has confirmed he is set to run for Mayor of Olhão, representing social-democratic party PSD/Algarve.
(...)
Better known for his roles in the ‘Madeline McCann’ and ‘Joana’ cases – two children, one British, one Portuguese, both of whom disappeared in separate incidents in the Algarve – ex-police officer Gonçalo Amaralo said his most recent challenge is the “result of my availability and an invitation that was made by PSD/Algarve and the local municipality”.
(...)
Tavira Mayor of twelve years Macário Correia has voiced his approval of Sr. Amaral’s nomination, considering it “positive”, that the PSD party has found a candidate that has “a strong civic participation and who has fought for justice”.
Hmmm.
I'd never heard of this chap, but I found this:
O Supremo Tribunal Administrativo determinou "a perda do actual mandato" de Macário Correira, presidente da Câmara de Faro, por violação do Plano Regional do Ordenamento do Território do Algarve e Plano Diretor Municipal em 2006.
http://www.dn.pt/inicio/portugal/interior.aspx?content_id=2646210
It seems that he's another one whose found himself in a bit of legal bother... and he's not even the deputy mayor who literally munched up documents during a police raid.
Never a dull moment down there...
No. Two things only.
1. Did Amaral break the rules by using information gathered while case co-cordinator to write his book? The judge says he did because he published his book just three days after the release of the files.
2. Were the McCanns entitled to the presumption of innocence? The judge said they were entitled to be presumed innocent by Amaral as he is a retired policeman and is as such still bound by the rules applied to those involved in the Judicial process.
1. As for breaking the secret of justice rules, was a formal complaint made? If so, did the Ministério Público follow it up? Was an investigation carried out? Was a formal accusation made? No! So, I can't see how the judge can decide that Gonçalo Amaral broke the secrecy of justice law when there was no accusation, no trial, he wasn't given an opportunity to defend himself, solely based on the three days. IMO, it was not in her remit to make this decision.
2. In the book and in interviews Gonçalo Amaral has never said outright that the McCanns were guilty, he only states that they were suspected of hiding their daughter's body and this is in accordance with the investigation of which he was a part.
The conclusions my team and I have arrived at are the following:
1. The minor, Madeleine McCann died inside apartment 5A of the Ocean Club in Vila da Luz, on the night of May 3rd 2007;
2. There was simulation of abduction.
3. Kate Healy and Gerald McCann were probably involved in the concealment of their daughter's body.
4. The death may have occurred as a result of a tragic accident;
5. The evidence proves the parents' negligence concerning the care and safety of the children.
The sun is going down over this beautiful countryside. Children are playing under the watchful gaze of their parents. I think about the enthusiasm that was characteristic of him when I met Tavares in November 1981, at the judiciary police school, and which still fires him. The past seems distant, but it's not forgotten. We gave the best of ourselves to resolve this case. Our conclusions rest on the proven facts and the evidence interpreted within the principles of the law. Our work was done in the cause of justice, based on the material truth, the only thing that must prevail in a universe where the lie is raised up as truth.
The End
1. As for breaking the secret of justice rules, was a formal complaint made? If so, did the Ministério Público follow it up? Was an investigation carried out? Was a formal accusation made? No! So, I can't see how the judge can decide that Gonçalo Amaral broke the secrecy of justice law when there was no accusation, no trial, he wasn't given an opportunity to defend himself, solely based on the three days. IMO, it was not in her remit to make this decision.
2. In the book and in interviews Gonçalo Amaral has never said outright that the McCanns were guilty, he only states that they were suspected of hiding their daughter's body and this is in accordance with the investigation of which he was a part.
Does this passage not appear in the book's final chapter then?
It is amazing how little you understand about the case...amaral has stated as a fact Maddie died in the apartment
It's amazing how little you understand about the case. The quote came from the report dated 10 September 2007 signed by Tavares de Almeida and was a report of the conclusions of the investigation as of that date and is not presented as Gonçalo Amaral's personal opinion on the investigation. This information is in the police file.
I have no idea - you claimed that the Gonc Fund was completely transparent so that's why I asked the question, I assumed the answer would be readily forthcoming.
That is a very good question though. How will the McCanns fund their legal representation in Portugal now if the only justification for using the fund, the damage to the search for Madeleine, has been dismissed by the judge ?quick, start a fund for them Faithlilly, you wouldn't want Gonc to have an unfair advantage now, would you?
That is a very good question though. How will the McCanns fund their legal representation in Portugal now if the only justification for using the fund, the damage to the search for Madeleine, has been dismissed by the judge ?
Here is an spun-in-distorted-pink article from NOTW.
The original news was that a highly regarded man of integrity had been selected by the top level of a leading portuguese political party as candidate for mayor of a small town called Olhão. A big honour and well deserved, because of his excellent experience in the PJ and his high level of ethics.
Those plain facts must have been a major threat to some individual as is proved by the pathetic spin which perverted the true good news by inserting the words "shamed" "booted out" "outrage" " right-wing" and by putting "MAYOR" in capitals which implies disgust.
What was the next thing that happened, just a few days after 11th May 2009?
Thanks Misty for that article. Note the contrast between its honest straight reporting, and the outright distortion enforced on the UK public in the NOTW of the same story by childish insertion of insult words
You're welcome.What did you think of the big official review of european football?
I'm a big fan of distorted reporting on the Sun's sports' pages, Pegasus. %£&)**#
What did you think of the big official review of european football?
For an honest straight account of which persons reportedly met with a top PSD person in Lisbon in mid-Jan 2009, I refer you to none other than the greatest man of integrity in this whole case.
I am equally sure that if there was any political influence exerted on the PSD official, it would have been leaked into the Portuguese press by an unnamed source.The fact is, something happened in Jan 2009, which somehow caused an unusual action by a major political party.
Did Amaral believe he was so much of a threat to the McCanns & the UK that they would have to halt him in his political tracks AND his own proud fellow countrymen would allow that to happen?
@misty. Not important, it was years ago, portugese headed, blair and brown involved.
Back to the libel appeal - an amazing £27415 even with complete silence from major UK newspapers and TV.
The silence is so great I think maybe even the masterspinner couldn't have fixed that, silence for a whole week, and maybe something much bigger is happening silently behind scenes?
I am thinking by UK standards Misty. Confucius say detective no talk means busy. Never underestimate a woman.Is this just another way of saying "tick-tock, softly, softly catchee monkey" by any chance?
Well either the McCanns are funding it themselves, or have negotiated contingency fees with their lawyers. In my opinion this is the most likely.
That is a very good question though. How will the McCanns fund their legal representation in Portugal now if the only justification for using the fund, the damage to the search for Madeleine, has been dismissed by the judge ?
http://www.publico.pt/portugal/jornal/comissao-politica-do-psd-chumba-candidatura-do-exinspector-goncalo-amaral-a-camara-de-olhao-293242
Comissão política do PSD chumba candidatura do ex-inspector Gonçalo Amaral à Câmara de Olhão
Sofia Rodrigues
28/01/2009 - 00:00
The National Political Committee of the PSD decided yesterday to veto the name of Gonçalo Amaral, former Inspector of Judicial Police, candidate for the City of Olhão.
PSD confirms that the organ so that the president's party, Manuela Ferreira Leite, had said in an interview with RTP - which spoke out against the name of the former inspector, as a person who until recently was linked to justice. "Politicians can not create the impression that there is a promiscuity between politics and justice," explained Ferreira Leite two weeks ago.
Former inspector, retired from PJ since June 2008, was the choice of the district council of the PSD / Algarve to list head in Olhão (city of residence) and approved by the district.
The coordinator municipal committee decided to veto, however, the name of Gonçalo Amaral and submitted this proposal to the national policy committee, which accepted it. This decision will mean that the choice of another candidate process is triggered.
The leader of PSD-Algarve and member of Parliament, Mendes Bota, has vehemently defended the former inspector who led the initial phase of the disappearance of Madeleine McCann investigations.
Macarius to Faro
Last Saturday, Mendes Bota was the presentation of Amaral's book, Maddie, the Truth Lies in Loulé, next to the author.
Asked at the time about whether there would be another alternate candidate, if the proposal were sinker by national political committee, Mendes Bota said only that the book of Gonçalo Amaral was "made of facts" and that all that was in the book was "truth."
Also during the end-of-week, Faro district council PSD approved by "unanimous" and "acclaim" the application Correia to farense authority.
Correia, currently president of Tavira Chamber, said Lusa that "welcomed" the will of the militants of PSD-Faro where was candidate to Faro, but preferred to refer to "later" more comments. At the meeting of the district council, Macarius said he had "some ideas" to solve the "medium and long term" "financial problems of the Faro local authority".
Just yesterday, the president of Faro Council, José Apolinario (PS), accused "someone" local PSD of having used a confidential document of the Court (TC) to make "political attack".
"One of the PSD sector understood deliver the document to the media," accused Apollinaris, in a press statement on the report in the Morning Post, which indicated that the CT detected "irregularities of more than 530,000 euros in ten additional contracts in construction from Faro athletics track. " with Lusa
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
They're all as corrupt as each other. The guy who was elected instead of Amaral, former Mayor of Tavira, Jose Macario Correia, has been up to his neck in planning irregularities during his tenures in Tavira & Faro & was suspended from office.
We don't even see the tip of the iceberg over here ... but it has all been rumbling about beneath the surface for many years before the McCann family set foot on Portuguese soil.
I suppose he may have seen himself as being in the same position as a whistle blower. He thought there was unprecedented support for the Tapas 9 from the UK. He thought the secret services were present. He decided at some point that UK police were only there to protect the McCanns. He believed there was political pressure on the PJ. When he voiced his concerns he was removed from the investigation. He became upset because the PJ didn't support him. That seems to be why he decided to write his book.
How can one consider oneself to be a whistleblower while simultaneously insisting that the facts presented are in the publicly accessible files?
How can one consider oneself to be a whistleblower while simultaneously insisting that the facts presented are in the publicly accessible files?
One must always remember that Gonçalo will have information in his possession concerning individuals and events which not even he can divulge, at least not yet.
One must always remember that Gonçalo will have information in his possession concerning individuals and events which not even he can divulge, at least not yet. There will also be confidences which he cannot break for fear of losing what support he still has among former colleagues.
of course...his ace...wonder when he will play it
One must always remember that Gonçalo will have information in his possession concerning individuals and events which not even he can divulge, at least not yet. There will also be confidences which he cannot break for fear of losing what support he still has among former colleagues.
One must always remember that Gonçalo will have information in his possession concerning individuals and events which not even he can divulge, at least not yet. There will also be confidences which he cannot break for fear of losing what support he still has among former colleagues.Why "not yet"? Is he the only person with this top secret information? And, if it's so top secret how do you even know it exists...?
Why "not yet"? Is he the only person with this top secret information? And, if it's so top secret how do you even know it exists...?
Why "not yet"? Is he the only person with this top secret information? And, if it's so top secret how do you even know it exists...?
If he had any such information, he would have been obliged to hand it over to the PJ... if that's the case, what did Paiva do with it? Paiva was, after all, one of his witnesses...
The PJ is an organisation which still works on the basis of secrecy and the need to know and I cannot see that changing any time soon.
I hadn't noticed this before. Quite poignant, IMO. Moreover, it helps to clarify the point that just because something appears in the police files doesn't make it true.
Art 27 and 28. The decision concerning this issue faces, firstly, the problem of the dichotomy between "facts ascertained during the investigating process" and "facts that also are part of the investigating process". If “acts ascertained in the investigation" refers to those which, with rigour and according to the procedural-penal dogma, are the result of the investigation that was achieved, then only one deserves this qualification – the disappearance of Madeleine McCann.
(P.10)
http://www.gerrymccannsblogs.co.uk/v02.htm (http://www.gerrymccannsblogs.co.uk/v02.htm)
Going by the number of recent 'busts' concerning members of all branches of law enforcement, it seems the Portuguese authorities are making great efforts to get rid of the merest sniff of corruption.
I'm not sure that they would look kindly on an "Ace" being kept hidden for years to be produced at a time of Mr Amaral's choosing if it involves evidence in a case such as Madeleine McCann's.
Is this just another way of saying "tick-tock, softly, softly catchee monkey" by any chance?No, based on research
Is anyone else slightly concerned that GA has not directly thanked the UK public for the massive donations to his fund, either on PJGA or his own Facebook page?
That's some report, Carana. Have you done the actual income sums? £5%4%
That's some report, Carana. Have you done the actual income sums? £5%4%
Is anyone else slightly concerned that GA has not directly thanked the UK public for the massive donations to his fund, either on PJGA or his own Facebook page?
The people running the fund have. I imagine he is keeping his distance in case people accuse him of collecting the money himself.
No, I haven't, DCI, as I don't know where to find what the estimated income was based on.
These are without his interview fees.
1. Gonçalo Amaral made the statements that are attributed to him under the Correio da Manhã.Proved.
2. Proved that the defendant Guerra&Paz fixed the cover price of the book Maddie - A Verdade da Mentira in Portugal is € 13,33.
According to the affirmation 2 : 13,80, VAT included (6%).
3. and 4. Proved that the defendant Gonçalo Amaral earned from the sales of the book “Maddie, A Verdade da Mentira” in 2008 and 2009 an amount of € 342.111,86.
According to the affirmation 3 : GA earned from the sales in Portugal € 621.000.
According to the affirmation 4, GA has earned from the sale of editions in foreign languages of the book not less than € 498.750.
5. The book was sold in Brazil by the defendant Guerra e Paz, Editores SA.
Not proved.
6. Proved that the DVD was sold for € 6,95 byPresselivre Imprensa SA together with the newspaper Correio da Manhã, owned by this company.
According to the affirmation 6 : cover price of € 6.
7. Proved that the defendant Gonçalo Amaral earned € 40.000 from DVD sales in 2008.
According to the affirmation 7, he earned from the sale of the DVD € 112.500.
No, based on researchResearch of what? Female DCIs?
I wish people donating to the fund would not use it as a one-way noticeboard for their armchair theories.
Why not just donate and say "for a man of integrity" or "for justice".
The many comments mocking the bike ride are very unnecessary IMO.
Here's a clue, the solution when SY/PJ find it is likely have some very significant differences from Mr Amaral's theory. If not, he would have solved it in 2007. Have people forgotten the great british principle "innocent before proven guilty". The comments about the bike ride are out of order, just my opinion. It is better to donate and respect important principles.
So I guess by now Amaral has filed his appeal - what next?
A poor guess (unless tongue-in-cheek, in which case, an excellent guess).
Another question: if, indeed, Amaral has lost the libel trial outright, how can Poulton produce a video saying, theMcCannsdunit?
Answers on a postcard ....
The judge in Portugal said it's not illegal to say what Amaral said. In the UK they would sue, I expect.
I do find it strange that after his outburst against the verdict amaral has gone very quiet re his appealJustice works in silence, you know.
IMO an approximate estimate of the legal expenditure cost of appealing is about £40,000.
What is that estimate based on?A very small quantity of lawyers. I assume there is only one?
In this libel case has the 2008 LP statement been mentioned yet by Mr Amaral's lawyer?
Do you mean the one before the files were released?The Leic Police statement to the Court was made at a date (7 July 2008 IIRC) when Mr Amaral was completing the final words of his book, and is therefore relevant IMO.
If so, irrelevant ...
I don't find the mocking comments about the bike ride to raise money for a charity to be in quite the same league as some of the nonsense people think £5.00 donation entitles them to post. I am incredulous as to how the brains of these individuals are wired ... and anyone from the real world (not our incestuous little corner of it) bothering to read must simply be disgusted at the open hatred displayed.
I most certainly am disgusted at the hatred towards Amaral, and others who do not believe in the McCanns stranger abduction theory as well.
He has every right to access his legal right regardless of what is said on here, It does seem to upset some folks though.
I haven't actually seen anyone on this forum objecting to people funding Mr Amaral's appeal ... what they wish to do with their money is entirely their concern.And I am sure nobody will have any objection if the gofundme total raised increases to £40K when the Sun Mirror Mail Telegraph Guardian Times Independent BBC ITV and Sky all finally end their recent silence about it? That is big amount of publicity coming soon?
And I am sure nobody will have any objection if the gofundme total raised increases to £40K when the Sun Mirror Mail Telegraph Guardian Times Independent BBC ITV and Sky all finally end their recent silence about it? That is big amount of publicity coming soon?I thought £25k was supposed to be the trigger point for mass media interest...?
And I am sure nobody will have any objection if the gofundme total raised increases to £40K when the Sun Mirror Mail Telegraph Guardian Times Independent BBC ITV and Sky all finally end their recent silence about it? That is big amount of publicity coming soon?
That's a big if.
Even though it's possible to do far more, it shouldn't be necessary to have to do more than compare that part of the prosecutors' report which makes plain the McCanns are not guilty of any crime with the final chapter of Amaral's book, to scupper all Amaral's hopes of an appeal ....
There you go again, putting your own slant on the archiving report.
The AG stated there was no proof they were involved..NOT THAT THEY WEREN'T !!!
The jury's still out on that question ferryman.
There you go again, putting your own slant on the archiving report.
The AG stated there was no proof they were involved..NOT THAT THEY WEREN'T !!!
The jury's still out on that question ferryman.
How can the 'jury still be out' as to whether or not they were involved - when both the PJ and SY have said they are not suspects?
That can only mean that they have been cleared of any suspicion of involvement by both police forces.
A group of sceptics in a corner of the internet who do not want to accept that fact is not a 'jury' - except in their own minds IMO.
All im-modesty to the fore, I've yet to hear a more plausible explanation than mine of why Santos began proceedings with a plea that proceedings be in camera to protect Madeleine lest Madeleine be alive.
Libel was admitted, making sense of pronouncements about later proceedings that they were damages proceedings.
Indeed, proceedings to establish damage arising from proven and admitted libel ...
Why was Amaral's (latest in a long line of!) lawyers recently heard wittering vacuously about neglect?
Does anyone know?
How can the 'jury still be out' as to whether or not they were involved - when both the PJ and SY have said they are not suspects?
That can only mean that they have been cleared of any suspicion of involvement by both police forces.
A group of sceptics in a corner of the internet who do not want to accept that fact is not a 'jury' - except in their own minds IMO.
Libel has never been admitted ferryman, do you dwell in a parallel universe by any chance?
Unfortunately benice, the crime remains unknown.
Beliefs DON'T COUNT, DO THEY.
As time goes by that could all change, this is the simple fact which many fail to comprehend. They have never been cleared since the crime if any has never been established.
The parents are unfortunately in limboland and will continue to be so for as long as Madeleine's fate is unknown. Not a nice situation to be in by any means.
If, by that, you mean suffering the unbearable tension and distress of just not knowing, then agreed.
But if you mean in the frame (as suspects), then disagreed ...
As time goes by that could all change, this is the simple fact which many fail to comprehend. They have never been cleared since the crime if any has never been established.
I think the only thing Amaral can appeal is the size of the award, which would make sense of witterings about 'neglect'.
That's probably what Amaral is basing his plea on ...
There seems to be some confusion about Portuguese practise, here.
High awards are (virtually) unheard of in criminal libel cases.
Civil libel cases are, themselves, rare.
But where they occur, there is no cap on the size of an award.
I don't see how witterings about anything would affect the issues under consideration.
Probably not, to Amaral's advantage.
Which would make the McCanns outright winners at first instance ....
How so?
Because Amaral has no basis of appeal.
He has written a book stating theMcCannsdunitandcovereditup, when no serious follower of events (including two national police forces and the Portuguese prosecutors) concur with that view.
So that just leaves the size of the award to challenge, which doesn't seem excessive compared to money made from sales, interviews (etc.)
Has the timeline for an appeal expired? Or is there a facility for requesting an extension? plz
(If there has been any news on this - I must have missed it.)
Because Amaral has no basis of appeal.
He has written a book stating theMcCannsdunitandcovereditup, when no serious follower of events (including two national police forces and the Portuguese prosecutors) concur with that view.
So that just leaves the size of the award to challenge, which doesn't seem excessive compared to money made from sales, interviews (etc.)
There were 40 calendar days from a point towards the end of April.
There are 31 days in May and it's now 11 June
I thought £25k was supposed to be the trigger point for mass media interest...?Yes there was an indication that reaching the £25K target would be the trigger point, at least for one major newspaper, when they would report on it. But still silence, even though it is now approaching £30K. IMO the articles are queued up at editor's desk but get no further. There's a journo who donated ages ago who said just that - 2 articles queued. Maybe something will be published when there is tangible proof the appeal has been both filed and accepted?
Maybe he has lodged an Appeal, and is now waiting to see if it will be accepted, since his reasons will have to be considered.
I have no idea how long this could take. Any ideas, anyone?
All im-modesty to the fore, I've yet to hear a more plausible explanation than mine of why Santos began proceedings with a plea that proceedings be in camera to protect Madeleine lest Madeleine be alive.
Libel was admitted, making sense of pronouncements about later proceedings that they were damages proceedings.
Indeed, proceedings to establish damage arising from proven and admitted libel ...
That's the lawyer who was dismissed by SMS, isn't it?
Gonçalo Amaral despede advogado por SMS
17.06.2014 9h01
Às dez da noite de sexta-feira o advogado Santos de Oliveira recebeu um SMS de Gonçalo Amaral a dispensar os seus serviços.
http://expresso.sapo.pt/sociedade/goncalo-amaral-despede-advogado-por-sms=f876140
It is.
He seemed to have got suckered in by poor on-line advice about the McCanns' legitimacy in bringing legal action in Madeleine's name.
If it goes through (which I expect it will), it will be nit-picking over one or more points of fact presented in court or law, IMO. E.g., the judge hadn't fully considered x, y or z and that a different interpretation could be made.
It is.
He seemed to have got suckered in by poor on-line advice about the McCanns' legitimacy in bringing legal action in Madeleine's name.
I think that is why the judge made her ruling so brutally short and to the point. I think the intention was to make sure her decision would stand with no leeway for appeal.
What is to appeal? He did breach confidentiality and he did deny the McCanns' their right to innocence. As far as the amount concerned ... he probably made more from the book and documentary.
The longer it drags on without news of the lodgement of an appeal ... the more I think the judge may have made it impossible.
£33K raised.
The UK press is silenced - it's almost as if one side has some kind of power over them.
And the desperate childish attempts to discredit the gofundme appeal have started.
£33K raised.The UK Press is not silenced, it is indifferent, apart from the Star which will publish any old crap if it thinks it will sell a newspaper.
The UK press is silenced - it's almost as if one side has some kind of power over them.
And the desperate childish attempts to discredit the gofundme appeal have started.
The UK Press is not silenced, it is indifferent, apart from the Star which will publish any old crap if it thinks it will sell a newspaper.
£33K raised.
The UK press is silenced - it's almost as if one side has some kind of power over them.
And the desperate childish attempts to discredit the gofundme appeal have started.
The UK Press is not silenced, it is indifferent, apart from the Star which will publish any old crap if it thinks it will sell a newspaper.
£33K raised.According to some here Amaral is a national hero. This being the case, perhaps you can supply links to the numerous PT press articles about this fundraising endeavour? After all, I understand that despite his huge popularity in Portugal his own countrymen have been a little stingy on the donations front but I'm sure funds are flooding in now from the Portuguese following the huge media interest there...
The UK press is silenced - it's almost as if one side has some kind of power over them.
And the desperate childish attempts to discredit the gofundme appeal have started.
What's newsworthy about the fact that he's likely to appeal?
The UK media haven't been silenced: there was an article in the Star when the new fund hit £25k. Plus one by Natasha Donn, evidently.
If ever the ruling eventually got overturned (which I doubt) or reduced to a nominal sum, that might spark a bit of interest due to the broader issues involved.
Likely to appeal?
The date for appeals is passed and there is no confirmation that he has ...
....I understand that despite his huge popularity in Portugal his own countrymen have been a little stingy on the donations front...Possibly because the gofundme page is aimed at english speakers?
Possibly because the gofundme page is aimed at english speakers?I got severely reprimanded once for selective quoting someone else's post. Perhaps you could now address the whole of my post?
Portuguese people have donated directly to PJGA.
The UK Press is not silenced, it is indifferent, apart from the Star which will publish any old crap if it thinks it will sell a newspaper.Correct.
Correct.Pegasus' contention that it was the humungous fund raised by the Ammy Barmy Army that was in itself noteworthy, not so much the fact of the bent ex-copper appealing....
Being an old cynic one could say "Corpulent balding middle aged ex maybe bent copper appealing court judgement" don't sell copy.
"Cute little blonde girl with tennis balls"....kerching. But one would guess that particular kerching sells less copy than it used to so will wind down until something truly eye catching happens.
Pegasus' contention that it was the humungous fund raised by the Ammy Barmy Army that was in itself noteworthy, not so much the fact of the bent ex-copper appealing....
Pegasus' contention that it was the humungous fund raised by the Ammy Barmy Army that was in itself noteworthy, not so much the fact of the bent ex-copper appealing....
Pegasus' contention that it was the humungous fund raised by the Ammy Barmy Army that was in itself noteworthy, not so much the fact of the bent ex-copper appealing....I had been led to believe that at least one major UK newspaper (not the star) was planning to report this as soon as it reached 25K target. Also there is a donation claiming to be from a journo which says that articles are being held back until time right.
I had been led to believe that at least one major UK newspaper (not the star) was planning to report this as soon as it reached 25K target. Also there is a donation claiming to be from a journo which says that articles are being held back until time right.
Correct.
Being an old cynic one could say "Corpulent balding middle aged ex maybe bent copper appealing court judgement" don't sell copy.
"Cute little blonde girl with tennis balls"....kerching. But one would guess that particular kerching sells less copy than it used to so will wind down until something truly eye catching happens.
A lot of sauces have said a lot of things over time, Pegasus.No sauces Carana, just noticing a silence.
I had been led to believe that at least one major UK newspaper (not the star) was planning to report this as soon as it reached 25K target. Also there is a donation claiming to be from a journo which says that articles are being held back until time right.And yet no explanation from you concerning the similar apathy from the Portuguese press, despite Amaral's national hero status?
Goncalo Amaral has undoubtedly lodged an Appeal. But it will take time to process. Unless, of course, his lawyer has told him that he's got no chance. But why would he do that since there is enough money to pay him?
Goncalo Amaral is not obliged to keep us updated, anymore than The Mccanns are.
And yet no explanation from you concerning the similar apathy from the Portuguese press, despite Amaral's national hero status?The complete silence from the major Portugese TV stations and newspapers about the gofundme appeal reaching its target so fast, is very strange. I have at this time no explanation for it.
No sauces Carana, just noticing a silence.
I bet no-one can tell me who are NW and HM ??
Here's a clue - they and their teams have been working hard behind the scenes and for months now have been completely silent. An interesting silence IMO which may mean they are making real progess? That would make the libel case insignificant.
Any views on whether this legal case began with an ex-parte injunction?
No sauces Carana, just noticing a silence.
I bet no-one can tell me who are NW and HM ??
Here's a clue - they and their teams have been working hard behind the scenes and for months now have been completely silent. An interesting silence IMO which may mean they are making real progess? That would make the libel case insignificant.
You do like quizs Pegasus. Nicola Walls and Helen MonteiroYes.
Yes it did. As so many do.Thanks. So is it normal, for the other party to first hear of the injunction against them on the telly?
Yes.
There is an old saying in our old village pub.
"A woman who is not talking is very busy".
And BTW one of them has a reputation for solving crimes before anyone notices.
Another legal question, could the judge decide to rule (in the appeal) in favour of one of the 5 appellants and against another of the 5, or must the judge treat all 5 identically as if they were one combined person?
There is only one appellant, Gonçalo Amaral. The judge acquitted all of the others even though they divulged the same "theories" as Gonçalo Amaral because they, as normal citizens, had the right to say that the McCanns could have hidden Madeleine's body and simulated an abduction but he didn't as an ex-policeman. This means that, if the book, had been written by a journalist, there was no libel or lies in it to cause damages to the parents but with the name of Gonçalo Amaral on the cover it caused damages, even though the judge stated in the "factos provados" that the McCanns did not suffer significant damages!
Had it been written by A N Other how many copies woukd it have sold. Even if a publisher could be found.
So, therefore, it is not the content of the book that matters. It only matters who wrote it and how much it sold? IMO that is a ridiculous argument!
There is only one appellant, Gonçalo Amaral. The judge acquitted all of the others even though they divulged the same "theories" as Gonçalo Amaral because they, as normal citizens, had the right to say that the McCanns could have hidden Madeleine's body and simulated an abduction but he didn't as an ex-policeman. This means that, if the book, had been written by a journalist, there was no libel or lies in it to cause damages to the parents but with the name of Gonçalo Amaral on the cover it caused damages, even though the judge stated in the "factos provados" that the McCanns did not suffer significant damages!
Don't be stupid. He wrote a book accusing grieving parents of committing crimes with no evidence or due process. If he had not been the coordinator of the case nobody would have taken any notice.
It seems amaral was arrogant enough to believe the rules didn't apply to him.
The investigation suspected them of hiding their child's body and simulating an abduction and GA gave an account of that investigation. So, in your words, if anyone else had accused these "grieving parents of committing crimes with no evidence or due process" in a book, it was all right because nobody would have taken notice,
A cross-section of the PJ contingent of the investigation considered that, or (possibly) pretended to consider it to test out their suspects.
Blatant misinterpretation of evidence.
But was that malicious?
Or incompetent?
The investigation suspected them of hiding their child's body and simulating an abduction and GA gave an account of that investigation. So, in your words, if anyone else had accused these "grieving parents of committing crimes with no evidence or due process" in a book, it was all right because nobody would have taken notice,
So where is the confirmation that justifies the title of this thread?
It certainly isn't a State Secret if an appeal has been lodged ... so why has no one told us if one has been or not ... it might at least give people some information about whether they need to keep on making contributions to Mr Amaral's fund or if they can cancel their standing orders.
Thing is that if he hasn't lodged an appeal, or if he's lodged one that's been rejected, that's it!
The McCanns are outright winners at first instance ....
Thing is that if he hasn't lodged an appeal, or if he's lodged one that's been rejected, that's it!
The McCanns are outright winners at first instance ....
Red bit: If he hasn't made the time limit or it has been bounced already I think we would know don't you?
Blue bit: "outright" will depend on what the P & L looks like.
Just read this post, on another board elsewhere:
responding to:
"...still causing massive heartache amongst the remaining handful of cultists"
(Reply):
That's because they knew their only chance was to stop the gofundme page on day 1 - and they tried, and failed!
And now we look forward to news of Amaral's appeal being lodged next week.
Next week?
Too late already ....
It's not too late! You still don't seem to understand that the first instance judge cannot stop the appeal from going to a higher court. That would be a denial of justice. The basis of appealing is that the arguments of the appellant are seen by different judges, that's the way it is in Portugal.
It's not too late! You still don't seem to understand that the first instance judge cannot stop the appeal from going to a higher court. That would be a denial of justice. The basis of appealing is that the arguments of the appellant are seen by different judges, that's the way it is in Portugal.
so montclair who wrongly told us that all questions asked by the pj had to be approved by the judge is now offering us more legal advice
Don't be stupid. He wrote a book accusing grieving parents of committing crimes with no evidence or due process. If he had not been the coordinator of the case nobody would have taken any notice.
It seems amaral was arrogant enough to believe the rules didn't apply to him.
Even if he were considered guilty of not respecting the "dever de reserva" I don't see how would be worth € 500.000,00 plus interest to the McCanns when they didn't even suffer significant damages and they are the ones who are ultimately responsible for everything that has happened when they neglected their children. It was up to his hierarchy to sanction him and not a civil judge 7 years later. I wonder if there is a statute of limitations on this type of breach?
Why James Bulger's mother was never locked up, I can't begin to imagine ....
The loss of a loved and cherished daughter is the most trivial loss of all.
And there always to blame the actions of an abductor/assailant on guardians.
Why James Bulger's mother was never locked up, I can't begin to imagine ....
The loss of their child is a consequence of their lack of childcare.
There is no one else to blame ferryman for neglect.
I tend to look to incompetent duffers like Portuguese prosecutors for guidance on judgments like that.
They could find no evidence of neglect.
But then, what do they know?
They FAILED in their duty of care to their kids is what the prosecutor said...yiu left that out didnt you
Well pretty obvious for the casual observer.
Parents left children in a fire risk for extended periods whilst drinking and eating.
More than sufficient in the UK to bring charges and a visit from social services.
Well pretty obvious for the casual observer.
Parents left children in a fire risk for extended periods whilst drinking and eating.
More than sufficient in the UK to bring charges and a visit from social services.
As Lace has pointed out Social Services were involved but more to the point ...
** Snip
He has also campaigned for the parents of Madeleine McCann, who disappeared while on a family holiday in Portugal in 2007, to be prosecuted for child neglect and accused them of covering up what happened to their daughter, which led to the family successfully pursuing legal action against him.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anthony_Bennett_(politician)
Bennett is irrelevant.no parents have been taken to court except in extreme cases
As to social services, they rarely reveal their findings.
However, there cases where parents have left their children by themselves, and they have been taken to court.
no parents have been taken to court except in extreme cases
This more than qualifies for that.
no it doesn't.....cite a similar case..you cannot...a few parents have accepted cautions but have not been taken to court...
so montclair who wrongly told us that all questions asked by the pj had to be approved by the judge is now offering us more legal advice
Page 191 of the book "A Verdade da Mentira":
"...face à partida eminente para o Reino Unido do casal McCann, tomou-se a decisão de interrogá-los, antes de abandonarem o nosso país. Esta decisão foi devidamente ponderada, envolveu todos os elementos ligados à investigação, o Ministério Público e o Director Nacional da Polícia Judiciária."
"... with the eminent departure of the McCann couple for the UK, the decision was made to interrogate them, before they left our country. This decision was duly pondered, it involved all of the elements connected to the investigation, the Ministério Público (judges) and the National Director of the Judicial Police".
Obviously, the judge was involved and he would have to know which questions would be asked of the couple and which ones could incriminate them if they answered them, if they were to be made "arguidos".
Why on earth do you cite Amaral's discredited book of lies as an 'authority' on anything?
Why on earth do you cite Amaral's discredited book of lies as an 'authority' on anything?
You would say that of course.
If the donations made to GoFundMe are being paid directly into the BPI account, why is the PJGA page showing the total in £££s rather than Euros?Probably because transfers from GFM to that account are in GBP, which are converted to Euros by the recipient bank.
Probably because transfers from GFM to that account are in GBP, which are converted to Euros by the recipient bank.
BTW can you tell me (1) who is paying for the legal expenditure of Mr Amaral's opponents? and (2) what currency they do accounting in?
The donations to GFM are also in dollars & Euros. GFM cannot pay funds directly into a Portuguese bank account. They are paid into a Stripe account which then transfers funds to PJGA. GFM deduct a fee, the owner of the Stripe account can stipulate a fee. Why isn't the net amount shown in Euros?They are a payment processor not an intermediate account Misty.
I'm not interested in who is funding the McCanns legal costs. I'm just interested in the set-up of PJGA & the silence from Amaral.
They are a payment processor not an intermediate account Misty.
The money is transferred from GFM directly to the destination bank account in Portugal.
The GFM appeal honestly and transparently states that this appeal is to help pay Mr Amaral's legal costs.
Which fund on the other side has had the honesty and transparency to say - "we are helping pay the legal expenditure in this libel case against Mr Amaral"?
About the Organizer
Leanne Baulch
309 Facebook Friends | Verify Friendship
This person will receive your donation directly.
All payments are final and cannot be refunded.
Only give to people you know and trust.
https://www.gofundme.com/Legal-DefencePJGA/donate
GFM have no provision to collect or transfer funds ... the money goes into the bank account of the organiser of the appeal.
Money laundering legislation makes the sort of transfer envisaged a bit of a minefield, particularly between countries ... I hope Ms Baulch or her advisers have taken appropriate steps to minimise any risk to her arising from such considerations ... as of course, with possible tax issues.
While that money is under her name ... it is hers.
This is repeated over and over but without foundation.
It will be a bank to bank transfer and the source of the money is traceable and has an audit trail via gofundme. All payments are via credit or debit cards.
Tax? The money is legally gifts. And not in return for any service. Therefore it woukd not be taxable under any European or us legalisation.
Does the Find Madeleine Fund pay the legal expenditure of the 5 opponents against Mr Amaral in this libel case?
It should be a simple YES or NO answer.
Does the Find Madeleine Fund pay the legal expenditure of the 5 opponents against Mr Amaral in this libel case?The only way anyone can know if its's a yes or no answer is by looking at their submitted accounts. The 2009 (when the action was started) and 2010 accounts confirm the Fund was used to sue Mr Amaral, after that, there is no mention. Which begs the question, if it was not coming out of the Fund, where was it coming from?
It should be a simple YES or NO answer.
Well, the fund continues to grow despite the efforts to have it stopped and the efforts to smear Leanne.
Legal Defence for Goncalo Amaral
£28,782 of £25k
I'm surprised that at this juncture Amaral has not seen fit to at least personally thank his supporters for their sterling work on his behalf or to keep them up to speed on the progress of his appeal - especially in light of the deadline date having now passed. He doesn't need to go into detail - just a general statement would do.
To ignore them in this way seems more than a tad discourteous to me.
Perhaps he has? Not everything on the internet is available to the public.
Perhaps he has? Not everything on the internet is available to the public.
If he has made a personal statement thanking his supporters etc. - then why would anyone want to keep it secret?
If he has made a personal statement thanking his supporters etc. - then why would anyone want to keep it secret?
Clue in that embolden word!
Amaral did thanks everyone for their support in a very humane and compassionate way, and it was posted on many blogs and the Nigels site.
But if you leave your real name and number he may get back to you and explain it all. 8**8:/:
his fund and support terrifys mcann supporters and they know it!!!
I am. 8)><(
There there, Anna will be along in a minute.
Anna. Heeeelp.
Awww, bless!
Togetherness to help wee Alfie. 8)-)))
Clue in that embolden word!
Amaral did thanks everyone for their support in a very humane and compassionate way, and it was posted on many blogs and the Nigels site.
But if you leave your real name and number he may get back to you and explain it all. 8**8:/:
Why is this now coming up from the gofundme account?
http://www.gofundme.com/Legal-DefencePJGA
Site appears to be down.
Site appears to be down.Maybe the huge volume of donations recently has broken it.
Perhaps you'd provide the necessary link?
How recent was this statement of gratitude?
Maybe the huge volume of donations recently has broken it.
If I click on it from here, it doesn't work. If I open a new tab, it does.
It may have been a glitch due to maintenance.
Possibly.
But I do hope someone has checked the true status of Amaral's appeal ...
Possibly.
But I do hope someone has checked the true status of Amaral's appeal ...
In the meanwhile, I guess Ms Baulch will continue issuing patronising you're all very good boys and girls pats on the head to the faithful for just as long as such gestures keep the money rolling in ....
It would appear that this a source of irritation to you.
his fund and support terrifys mcann supporters and they know it!!!Sorry ?
why?? it is none of your buisness
Recently we noticed that one of the advertised "objects" (aims) of the FMF money-raising site was an ex-aim which had run down the curtains and ceased to be at company house several years ago. Have they fixed their site yet? To be sure some of the generous FMF supporters on this forum must have visited FMF this week to make their weekly FMF donation and will be able to tell us? Anyone?
Leanne has stated the gofundme appeal's single aim very clearly and transparently.
For comparision is anyone here willing to visit the FMF site, and post here their advertised aims ("objects")?
From the site tonight - is this what you want?Thanks misty I would appreciate it if you would please save a screen shot.
Support: Donations
The full objects of the Fund are:
To secure the safe return to her family of Madeleine McCann who was abducted in Praia da Luz, Portugal on Thursday 3rd May 2007;
To procure that Madeleine's abduction is thoroughly investigated and that her abductors, as well as those who played or play any part in assisting them, are identified and brought to justice; and
To provide support, including financial assistance, to Madeleine's family.
If the above objects are fulfilled then the objects of the Foundation shall be to pursue such purposes in similar cases arising in the United Kingdom, Portugal or elsewhere.
-------------------------------------------------------------------
Copyright
All content appearing on this Web site is the property of:
Madeleine's Fund
P.O. Box 9880
Leicester
LE7 7UJ
Copyright © 2013-2015 Madeleine's Fund. All rights reserved. As a user, you are authorized only to view, copy, print, and distribute documents on this Web site so long as (1) the document is used for informational purposes only, and (2) any copy of the document (or portion thereof) includes the following copyright notice: Copyright © 2013-2015 Madeleine's Fund. All rights reserved.
Her appeal quite clearly states all the money is going to her account. It is the lack of transparency after it reaches the Stripe account which is the problem, I think. Some of the Amaral supporters have expressed concern & haven't had a satisfactory answer, especially over the question of refunds.No, she states that all money goes direct to the PJGA BPI account.
Thanks misty I would appreciate it if you would please save a screen shot.
I needed that help to be able to say the following without being at risk of being "cruckedn2doored".
The third "object" you have verified today reads as follows:
"To provide support, including financial assistance, to Madeleine's family."
If you are correct, then that fund is making a false statement. That clause was removed from the official company documents several years ago as anyone can easily confirm if they have access to Company House documents.
I have taken a screen shot. At the risk of sounding ignorant, how to I add a date to it? (Windows 8.1)No need Misty, and thanks. Yours posts are sufficient to prove I did not invent the fact that "To provide support including financial assistance to Madeleine's family" is still being advertised today.
No, she states that all money goes direct to the PJGA BPI account.
You are quoting a generic GFM sentence.
BTW who pays the multiple lawyers of the 5 people opposing Mr Amaral in this case?
Just because something is stated on the internet doesn't make it true! We don't know who controls the PJGA blog or the BPI account. It would just be proper & correct for her to post a copy of the transfer details so everyone can see that things are above board. TBH I don't care if anyone wishes to donate to GA's fund - that's up to them if they can't see it doesn't help Madeleine in any way whatsoever - but it does bother me if this case is being used for illicit purposes yet again.Why not apply equal scrutiny to both funds?
As for who pays the McCanns legal fees - I have absolutely no idea. I'm not involved with any of the people "in the know".
Someone might end up with a slightly red face if it turns out Amaral has not been granted leave to appeal.
Why do you keep repeating this, you sound like a broken record. Gonçalo Amaral cannot be denied leave to appeal.
Why do you keep repeating this, you sound like a broken record. Gonçalo Amaral cannot be denied leave to appeal.
Has there been a miscalculation on the final date for submission of an appeal? We understood it to be last Monday.
If an appeal has been lodged ... why not simply say so?
Is it mandatory for such appeals to be publicly announced?
Presumably she hasn't been told - just like the rest of us.
Why would Amaral keep it quiet if he has been granted leave to appeal?
Spoilers.
By your logic it would also be known if he hadn't.
Spoilers.
By your logic it would also be known if he hadn't.
Not at all.
Why would Amaral be straining at the leach to tell the world he had been denied leave to appeal?
Indeed, I'm sure the little lawyer would be shouting it from the rooftops if that were true.
Perhaps there's an injunction 8(0(*
@)(++(* @)(++(* @)(++(*
But I can't think of a single reason why he would be reticent about telling the world he had been granted leave to appeal.
Can you?
and that works for the mccanns as well. 8)--))
What does?
What does?
You must get it into your head that things don't work the same as they do in the UK. The first instance judge cannot deny the appellant the right to appeal to the higher courts, if he fulfills the 4 bureaucratic requirement. If she does not agree with his arguments, she maintains her verdict and then sends the appeal on to the Tribunal da Relação. The judge can't say "I don't like your arguments and your appeal can't go to the higher court".
There is no automatic right of appeal.
Grounds of appeal must be submitted, assessed and either granted or denied.
Is it mandatory for such appeals to be publicly announced?
Maybe, but personally I don't see the big deal.
As far as I can see, the only ones getting worked up about this are those who dislike the idea of this fund in the first place.
Maybe, but personally I don't see the big deal.
As far as I can see, the only ones getting worked up about this are those who dislike the idea of this fund in the first place.
There are some who have contributed to the fund who may be beginning to get "worked up" about the lack of information coming out of Portugal, if I am interpreting what I am reading in other places correctly.
If you think it is no big deal not to give out information on the status of an appeal after the flurry of the initial indignant interviews from the proposed appellant ... you would appear to evidence much the same disregard for his supporters as Mr Amaral does by failing to keep them informed.
There are some who have contributed to the fund who may be beginning to get "worked up" about the lack of information coming out of Portugal, if I am interpreting what I am reading in other places correctly.
If you think it is no big deal not to give out information on the status of an appeal after the flurry of the initial indignant interviews from the proposed appellant ... you would appear to evidence much the same disregard for his supporters as Mr Amaral does by failing to keep them informed.
An interesting thought bearing in mind the strange way the last verdict was released.
I have no doubt you are misinterpreting the situation for your own purposes. and I have absolutely no interest in Amaral's supporters or their activities,
That is a bit of a value judgement.
Mr Amaral's supporters are financing his campaign fund ... and you appear to have expressed an interest by your comments on that.
Well......................
http://pjga.blogspot.nl/2015/06/update-appeal-filed.html
I was just looking at that.
Appeal submitted.
By the McCanns ....
You do understand what the site said, don't you ?
Gonçalo Amaral's appeal in the civil case that has been presented against him by the McCann family has been filed this morning.
I know what is says.
It says that the McCanns have appealed against Amaral.
And it seems they were allowed to submit their appeal late.
Was it meant to say something different?
Gonçalo Amaral's appeal in the civil case that has been presented against him by the McCann family has been filed this morning.
I know what is says.
It says that the McCanns have appealed against Amaral.
And it seems they were allowed to submit their appeal late.
Was it meant to say something different?
Gonçalo Amaral's appeal in the civil case that has been presented against him by the McCann family has been filed this morning.
I know what is says.
It says that the McCanns have appealed against Amaral.
And it seems they were allowed to submit their appeal late.
Was it meant to say something different?
ETA: I suppose the McCanns could be challenging the finding that Amaral's book did not harm the search for Madeleine ....
Oh dear.It is poorly worded, rather like her translations of the PJ files.
Read again.
No. The McCanns have filed nothing. Lets rearrange the sentence.
Gonçalo Amaral's appeal (in the civil case that has been presented against him by the McCann family) has been filed this morning.
The important information is in bold. The information in brackets is just a description of what the appeal is about.
It is poorly worded, rather like her translations of the PJ files.
Cue another 6 months of silence as the wheels of Portuguese justice trundle slowly through the upper echelons.
Meanwhile, kerching, kerching.
You might need to type that in a larger font. @)(++(* @)(++(* @)(++(*
So now we've got syntax out of the way, where is there independent corroboration that Amaral's grounds of appeal have been accepted?
And why was he allowed to submit after the deadline for appeals?
It is poorly worded, rather like her translations of the PJ files.
Cue another 6 months of silence as the wheels of Portuguese justice trundle slowly through the upper echelons.
Meanwhile, kerching, kerching.
It is poorly worded, rather like her translations of the PJ files.
Cue another 6 months of silence as the wheels of Portuguese justice trundle slowly through the upper echelons.
Meanwhile, kerching, kerching.
Come now, Misty. Lawyers gotta eat....
No. The McCanns have filed nothing. Lets rearrange the sentence.
Gonçalo Amaral's appeal (in the civil case that has been presented against him by the McCann family) has been filed this morning.
The important information is in bold. The information in brackets is just a description of what the appeal is about.
Come now, Misty. Lawyers gotta eat....
Yes.
OK
Thank you for that.
I'm just wondering how Amaral's going to eat - or does he get meal allowances for waiting time under the definition of expenses?
So now we've got syntax out of the way, where is there independent corroboration that Amaral's grounds of appeal have been accepted?
And why was he allowed to submit after the deadline for appeals?
ETA: The other point that's not clear is whether his submission has been accepted, or whether it is still under consideration.
If it was filed (late!) this morning, then it is presumably still under consideration ....
Surely you realize he wouln't be allowed to file an appeal, if the period he was allowed to do it had expired ?
I amended my post to make it clearer.
whohoo just read the good news about GA 8@??)(
Be careful what you wish for Carly. Appeals can be a double edged sword... 8(0(*
No doubt there will be confirmation in the mainstream press that Amaral has been allowed his appeal.
Won't there?
What's newsworthy about the idea that he's lodged an appeal? Wouldn't it be more or less assumed that he would?
Or not. 8((()*/
An opportunity for a good headline?
'Disgraced ex-cop extends the McCann's agony by appealing against the libel decision'
'Disgraced ex cop appeals libel decision thanks to vile internet trolls fund raising to pay his legal bills'
Just seen this posted elsewhere http://pjga.blogspot.nl/2015/06/update-appeal-filed.html
That does not make sense Stephen. All appeals carry a risk.
The higher court can review the judgement, and apart from the costs issue it is possible they may increase the award, especially if they continue the method of assessing damages pursued by the lower court.
But as always, time will tell.
Really - from where? Seems to work for me http://www.gofundme.com/Legal-DefencePJGA
Currently stands at £29,345
Your original link was to the PJGA BlogSpot, not GoFundMe. The GFM link did not load on the BlogSpot when I looked - I should have taken a screenshot.
I do know that JP.
The last time Amaral appealed the initial decision was overturned.
This case will just drag on.
You may be forgetting that was an appeal / review of an ex parte judgement. The book ban was overturned but not the sequestration of funds.
This is an appeal of a full case where both sides presented their evidence to the court.
My view is that it's a bit early for either "side" to be jumping for joy.
What an earth could be the defence of Amaral's proven, manifest and fundamental lies?
The trial wasn't about truth or lies, but about damage.
So, let's say Amaral wins some concessions on appeal, or even has the verdict overturned. I understand it is then over to the McCanns to appeal that decision, right? Then, if they succeed is it back to Amaral to appeal again? &%+((£
Seeing as you're here JP...
What assets were actually sequestered as part of this case as opposed to any concerning prior debts and what would the cut-off point have been for any income related to the book / docu drama / interviews... ? Would that have been any proven income received or due as of when the injunction was accepted, up until the end of 2009 or what?
You may be forgetting that was an appeal / review of an ex parte judgement. The book ban was overturned but not the sequestration of funds.
This is an appeal of a full case where both sides presented their evidence to the court.
My view is that it's a bit early for either "side" to be jumping for joy.
I only hope it isn't going to drag on for another five years, because I think that benefits no-one.
The way I see it at present is that the only pressure now on the Drs McCann is the progress in the search for what may have happened to Madeleine.
I think the reopening of the case particularly by the PJ has led to a lot of people re-evaluating the situation. I also think the decision against Mr Amaral, which is subject to appeal, has been effectively a moral victory for Madeleine's parents which is not going to be wiped out.
I agree there are pitfalls in any appeal.
If it is the amount of the award ... that could actually be increased and were the McCann legal team able to have some of the verbal contributions from contributors to Mr Amaral's fund introduced, that too could possibly have an effect. Particularly those including comments which call the Portuguese Justice System into question.
Interesting point. Clearly some of the royalties due to Amaral had been paid over, and it seems paid to his limited company. Hence the earring, the Jag and the parties, not to mention the titfer and the sharp suit.
So the court would have been able to freeze the bank account of the company, the royalties due but not yet paid from the publisher, and prevent transfer or sale of copyright of the book and documentary.
So no idea exactly how much, but probably quite a substantial sum.
Posted by portugalpress on June 15, 2015
Maddie cop launches appeal against McCann’s record damages ‘win’ of €500,000
Following a huge crowd-funding drive that has raised over £29,000 from well-wishers almost exclusively from the UK, former police inspector Gonçalo Amaral has today filed his appeal against the €500,000-plus damages awarded against him in a civil case taken out by the parents of Madeleine McCann.
The Projecto Justiça Gonçalo Amaral published the news this morning, thanking “each and every one” of the nearly 2000 people who have given money to the British gofundme appeal that has helped take Amaral’s legal fight to its next stage.
As the message went out, donations continued apace - with over £390 raised in a matter of hours.
Several of the day’s donors commented this was “news worth celebrating”, but more than one suggested the story is “unlikely to be covered by mainstream media”.
Indeed, by coincidence British media is much more focused today on Madeleine’s mother Kate who is leading a bike ride for a missing people’s charity.
Kate McCann has told reporters that she is “really encouraged” by progress being made by police in the eight-year hunt for her daughter.
Meantime, the gofundme appeal - started by a young Birmingham woman who was only 14 when Madeleine went missing - is set to continue.
Updates are promised - though with the speed of Portuguese justice it is anyone’s guess when Amaral’s appeal will be set a date for hearing.
As readers may be aware, the long-running civil case taken out by Madeleine’s parents centred on claims Amaral made in his book The Truth of the Lie in which he suggested the McCanns had faked their daughter’s abduction.
The McCann’s said the book caused them “devastation, desperation, anxiety and pain”.
Amaral’s supporters however claim they “will not let this case pass into obscurity” and “do not tolerate the leaving of unanswered questions”.
natasha.donn@algarveresident.com
- See more at: http://portugalresident.com/maddie-cop-launches-appeal-against-mccann%E2%80%99s-record-damages-%E2%80%98win%E2%80%99-of-%E2%82%AC500000#sthash.GJW0yFod.dpuf
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Still not direct from the horse's mouth (or his legal representatives)
If, indeed, Amaral has been granted his appeal, I would expect some report in mainstream media (particularly in Portugal).
I would also expect rentagob Amaral to broadcast it from the highest hills (metaphorically, of course) ....
Oh, I expect some tabloid hack with a few inches to fill will eventually do so...
Several of the day’s donors commented this was “news worth celebrating”, but more than one suggested the story is “unlikely to be covered by mainstream media”.
Why not?
So is he appealing against the amount of damages?
Gonçalo Amaral has today filed his appeal against the €500,000-plus damages awarded against him in a civil case taken out by the parents of Madeleine McCann.
I wonder why only Donn is reporting this great day in Portugal, for Gonzo
Has it occurred to you Anna, that the mccanns are not as popular as you think they are, and many people are just plain tired of their PR machine ?
I would actually say, bar the extremes which exist on both sides, the comments pages are probably more than reflective of opinion towards the mccanns.
So is he appealing against the amount of damages?Good question, seeing as how hugely popular Amaral is in his homeland, surely today is a day of national celebration in Portugal, not just in Trollington, UK?
Gonçalo Amaral has today filed his appeal against the €500,000-plus damages awarded against him in a civil case taken out by the parents of Madeleine McCann.
I wonder why only Donn is reporting this great day in Portugal, for Gonzo
Hmmm ... are you saying it is up to the McCann 'PR machine' to publish the news coming out of Portugal? I rather thought that was the job of journalists and the news media?
Hmmm ... are you saying it is up to the McCann 'PR machine' to publish the news coming out of Portugal? I rather thought that was the job of journalists and the news media?
if he is only appealing against the amount of damages then that is an acceptance of the judges ruling of the facts in the case
if he is only appealing against the amount of damages then that is an acceptance of the judges ruling of the facts in the case
http://pjga.blogspot.pt/2015/06/a-note-of-gratitude.htmlIf it's truth that guides the great man then why has he got a conviction for perjury...? &%+((£
http://pjga.blogspot.pt/2015/06/a-note-of-gratitude.html
Compare for accuracy, informativeness, and transparencyHow much has been spent on filing the appeal?
http://www.findmadeleine.com/about_the_campaign/
http://pjga.blogspot.pt/2015/06/a-note-of-gratitude.html
BTW £30000 tonight maybe?
You can be assured that Gonçalo Amaral is appealing against much more than the amount of damages.
You can be assured that Gonçalo Amaral is appealing against much more than the amount of damages.
In view of the manifest and proven lies Amaral has told, why do you suppose he should be appealing anything at all?
Let's see ...
Mark Harrison changed the investigation to one for a little girl assumed dead
(Oh no he didn't).
Mark Harrison concluded Madeleine was buried in close vicinity to apartment 5a
(Mark Harrison tentatively suggested that if she was dead, Madeleine's remains were most likely jettisoned into the sea).
Kate sacked a Leicestershire police liaison officer (where's the evidence)?
Eddie 'smelt death' all over the place. Neither Grime nor Harrison said that.
Amaral contradicted and corrected Prior on interpretation of the forensic results. We can safely assume that's a lie.
Prior rang the FSS to berate them on the PJ's power's of arrest (lie!)
The FSS produced a preliminary report (no they didn't).
STU 100 would have confirmed Madeleine was dead but was blocked by customs (the STU100 is for trapping and storing scents of living people suspected of crimes).
And so the catalogue of lies rolls.
And yet you think Amaral has a substantial basis for appeal?
Why is that?
In view of the manifest and proven lies Amaral has told, why do you suppose he should be appealing anything at all?
Let's see ...
Mark Harrison changed the investigation to one for a little girl assumed dead
(Oh no he didn't).
Mark Harrison concluded Madeleine was buried in close vicinity to apartment 5a
(Mark Harrison tentatively suggested that if she was dead, Madeleine's remains were most likely jettisoned into the sea).
Kate sacked a Leicestershire police liaison officer (where's the evidence)?
Eddie 'smelt death' all over the place. Neither Grime nor Harrison said that.
Amaral contradicted and corrected Prior on interpretation of the forensic results. We can safely assume that's a lie.
Prior rang the FSS to berate them on the PJ's power's of arrest (lie!)
The FSS produced a preliminary report (no they didn't).
STU 100 would have confirmed Madeleine was dead but was blocked by customs (the STU100 is for trapping and storing scents of living people suspected of crimes).
And so the catalogue of lies rolls.
And yet you think Amaral has a substantial basis for appeal?
Why is that?
How much has been spent on filing the appeal?That won't have been billed yet.
Establishing the "Truth" was set aside, FM.
Unless, of course, Amaral aims to raise it as an issue...
Depends how much store you set in Anne Guide's reports, I guess.
...
(http://miscarriageofjustice.co/index.php?action=dlattach;topic=6269.0;attach=5171)
Well on what most people have said, she is very reliable and does not show bias.
Isn't that just "Proof of delivery of pleading" Pegasus?Yes, it is issued by the court
Depends how much store you set in Anne Guide's reports, I guess.
According to Anne Guides, Kate's counsellor presented himself as a psychiatrist.
I don't actually believe it; nor that there was ever any question mark over his testimony.
Oh there is.
He was paid by the mccanns.
You do understand the concept of bias, don't you. 8)-)))
The ruling is also online in Portuguese.
The judge set aside the whole issue of establishing whether anything could be considered to be true simply because it appeared in the police files, as it was not within her remit to do so.
Someone has a sense of irony:
Truth is also simple. It is truth that guides me, and it will continue to do so, in its simplicity and greatness.
Of course it would be, except in cases in which establishing the truth is deliberately set aside.
I really don't think that it's in his best interest to wade into that territory, but who knows...
And Paiva was not at all biased by having Amaral as a boss?Was one paying the other ?
Oh there is.
He was paid by the mccanns.
You do understand the concept of bias, don't you. 8)-)))
You'll probably find it was Ann Guides translating her own Portuguese into her own English, producing an uncanny match ....
Kate and Gerry failed to produce independent medical evidence supporting their ludicrous claim for mental trauma induced by the book etc...
Kate and Gerry failed to produce independent medical evidence supporting their ludicrous claim for mental trauma induced by the book etc...
Depends how much store you set in Anne Guide's reports, I guess.
Yes I do.
Grime demonstrated it.
But Alan Pike didn't.
Pure rollocks.
Then again that's hardly a surprise.
P.S. Remind me of Pike's professional qualifications in Psychology.
Does this matter?
Kate and Gerry failed to produce independent medical evidence supporting their ludicrous claim for mental trauma induced by the book etc...there's no such thing...
there's no such thing...
Ask ferryman.
He's hooked on Pike's professionalism. 8)-)))
Does this matter?
I think that it would count if someone is testifying as to the mental state of one of the parties.
I don't think so, Stephen. There is nothing wrong with the professionalism of Mr. Pike. Or do you think that there is?
Oh there is.In the early weeks AP and IFLG and CR were paid by someone else, just IMO.
He was paid by the mccanns.
You do understand the concept of bias, don't you. 8)-)))
In the early weeks AP and IFLG and CR were paid by someone else, just IMO.
Back to the GFM appeal, by midnight it should be over 30,000 pounds
Should they have needed to?
Yes, in a court you must fight your case with evidence 'independent' is required. I know this from personal experience.
OR anyone could walk into a court claiming mental trauma....and be backed up by friends.
Has the judge put his credentials into question?
He's not a Psychologist.
and your view is subject to bias as we know.
Yes, in a court you must fight your case with evidence 'independent' is required. I know this from personal experience.
OR anyone could walk into a court claiming mental trauma....and be backed up by friends.
As is yours. But what do you think of Mr. Pike? Which is what I asked.
So you think that Amaral's Book will have had no effect on The McCanns?
I didn't say that Eleanor.
I believe the book would have an effect, but if they were innocent what would that matter. Further more, they claim the book made matters worse? WT* worse? seriously! and they tried to load that with more trauma than the original of their daughter 'being abducted' along with the book impacting the search for their daughter- not one bit of evidence of any of that.
For the record: I do not hate the parents ( I am bewildered by their behaviour and outraged by some of it) I am not an Amaral fan either. He has the right to express ......you know. I say what I say from what I have watched of the parents and their interviews. I am not influenced by anyone with any agenda on this forum.
I think I actually believe you. However, I was exactly the same sort of parent, although probably not quite so good as The McCanns.
"Tycoon .... is giving £100,000 to a fund to assist Kate and Gerry McCann with their legal costs."
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/6997429.stm
If you read the whole article it is clear this is a seperate fund, different to the FMF fund.
Does this fund still exist? What is it called? Who administers it? Is it paying the legal expenses of Mr Amaral's opponents today?
That's been known for nearly 8 years Pegasus, Richard Branson was only one of the people who made large donations.So has that £100,000+++ all been spent on legal costs already, or is it now funding the current court case against Mr Amaral?
There were quite a few. I thought you would have known them all!
So has that £100,000+++ all been spent on legal costs already, or is it now funding the current court case against Mr Amaral?
Already? 8 yeras ago. I shouldn't worry about it, Branson obviously wasn't.For several years PJGA have been halping pay Mr Amaral's legal costs defending against a legal attack by some foreign tourists. As for the fund on the other side, we don't even know its name, yet. Those clever legal peeps can't resist tax efficiency so chances are it is hidden away somewhere at CH ?
Who has paid for Amarals legal costs, do you know?
For several years PJGA have been halping pay Mr Amaral's legal costs defending against a legal attack by some foreign tourists. As for the fund on the other side, we don't even know its name, yet. Those clever legal peeps can't resist tax efficiency so chances are it is hidden away somewhere at CH ?
Maybe it is in a holding account with Carter Ruck.IMO no because at the time they were not involved, nor AFAIK are they involved in the current case.
Eleanor, there is no such a thing as perfect parents, I am the first to laugh that off re my first child!. If your children grow up with out harm and found their way in life then you did your bit. Don't measure yourself to others. We don't know what happened in PDL that night...
back on topic before you scold me...I don't think it was a great descision to sue Amaral.. especially the way they did.
Eleanor, there is no such a thing as perfect parents, I am the first to laugh that off re my first child!. If your children grow up with out harm and found their way in life then you did your bit. Don't measure yourself to others. We don't know what happened in PDL that night...
back on topic before you scold me...I don't think it was a great descision to sue Amaral.. especially the way they did.
I have always said the same, they were badly advised but then these lawyers have a vested interest in the McCanns regardless of whether it is England or Portugal. The McCanns have become a nice little earner and a potential cash cow for some unscrupulous operators.
The biggest mistake the McCanns made was in attempting to sue Amaral for £1million. They have lost a lot of sympathy by their perceived GREED!
I think the McCanns were absolutely right to sue amaral and have lost no sympathy
You are wrong, they are now being seen as grubby money grabbers and have lost much support evidenced by the dwindling donations to the fund whereas Amaral has never seen so much support.
I think the McCanns were absolutely right to sue amaral and have lost no sympathy
You are in dreamland if you believe the mccanns have widespread support.
With the mccanns, it has become all about the money.
That was very evident when an embarrassed Kate McCann had to make the statement that it wasn't about the money. If that was true she could end these proceedings immediately.
If this is true...
Dear friends,
Today, the 15th of June, my appeal against the sentence that has recently been produced in the trial concerning my book, "Maddie, A Verdade da Mentira", was filed at the Civil Court of Lisbon.
Then amaral has accepted the verdict and is only appealing against the level of damages...how is this going to achieve "Justice for Maddie" which is why many people are contributing to his fund
You are wrong, they are now being seen as grubby money grabbers and have lost much support evidenced by the dwindling donations to the fund whereas Amaral has never seen so much tangible support previously.No. Are the McCanns actively campaigning for contributions to The Fund? Have they any need to whilst Op Grange is happening? You haven't the faintest idea of the level of their support, and whether or not it has gone up or down and don't think that the Amaral Fund is an indication of anything more than the level of his fanatical support ie: tiny.
Has the tide turned??
If this is true...
Dear friends,
Today, the 15th of June, my appeal against the sentence that has recently been produced in the trial concerning my book, "Maddie, A Verdade da Mentira", was filed at the Civil Court of Lisbon.
Then amaral has accepted the verdict and is only appealing against the level of damages...how is this going to achieve "Justice for Maddie" which is why many people are contributing to his fund
IMO no because at the time they were not involved, nor AFAIK are they involved in the current case.
There must be a fund hidden away somewhere IMO which pays the legal costs of the foreign tourists who initiated the current legal attack on Mr Amaral.
Is there anything in the Portuguese press about Mr Amaral's appeal ... or in any press (Natasha doesn't really count)? I've seen nothing,which means just that, nothing, but one would have thought that Mr Amaral would be front page headlines on his home turf at least.
Like the appeal, all good things..................
Sometimes you should be careful what you wish for as J P warned yesterday ... and I think the result of the appeal may turn out not to be quite as you hope.
Sometimes you should be careful what you wish for as J P warned yesterday ... and I think the result of the appeal may turn out not to be quite as you hope.
That Brietta works both ways.
Not appealing wouldn't be a good idea either. After all € 500.000,00 plus interest are at stake as well as freedom of expression and book banning.
Not appealing wouldn't be a good idea either. After all € 500.000,00 plus interest are at stake as well as freedom of expression and book banning.
I have always said the same, they were badly advised but then these lawyers have a vested interest in the McCanns regardless of whether it is England or Portugal. The McCanns have become a nice little earner and a potential cash cow for some unscrupulous operators.
The biggest mistake the McCanns made was in attempting to sue Amaral for £1million. They have lost a lot of sympathy by their perceived GREED!
It's never a good idea to conflate lies and libel (copiously served in Amaral's book, film and interviews) with freedom of expression.
The two are completely different.
Amaral's "freedom" to transmit the lies of his book and film has been taken away from him.
The only question now left to resolve is what level of compensation to the McCanns and their children for Amaral's smear campaign is right.
I wonder how many more times you need to hear this? The judge said it wasn't illegal to say what Amaral said. she also said the facts in his book were mostly taken from the case files (not lies).
What she said was wrong was that he used privileged information to write his book (information he had access to as the co-ordinator of the investigation) and that as a retired policeman he failed to uphold the presumption of innocence, as he was bound to do.
The claims of the McCann children against Amaral were dismissed as not proven. So was the claim that his book damaged the 'search' for Madeleine. Only the parents received an award because the book damaged their reputation. It was banned to stop further damage.
Not sure about that, Davel.what you are saying is that the translation...on this Portuguese site...may not be accurate...I agree with you but what does that say for all the other translations that some claim prove the McCanns to be inconsistent
If it is a translation of "sentença", there are a lot of meanings: award, verdict, sentence, judgement...
No. Are the McCanns actively campaigning for contributions to The Fund? Have they any need to whilst Op Grange is happening? You haven't the faintest idea of the level of their support, and whether or not it has gone up or down and don't think that the Amaral Fund is an indication of anything more than the level of his fanatical support ie: tiny.
I wonder how many more times you need to hear this? The judge said it wasn't illegal to say what Amaral said. she also said the facts in his book were mostly taken from the case files (not lies).
What she said was wrong was that he used privileged information to write his book (information he had access to as the co-ordinator of the investigation) and that as a retired policeman he failed to uphold the presumption of innocence, as he was bound to do.
The claims of the McCann children against Amaral were dismissed as not proven. So was the claim that his book damaged the 'search' for Madeleine. Only the parents received an award because the book damaged their reputation. It was banned to stop further damage.
what you are saying is that the translation...on this Portuguese site...may not be accurate...I agree with you but what does that say for all the other translations that some claim prove the McCanns to be inconsistent
That was carefully worded, G-unit, and I find that to be a reasonable summary at first glance.
Concerning "The judge said it wasn't illegal to say what Amaral said." Yes, she did say that, and that seems to be the starting point in PT law. However, Murat won his appeal against CdaM, despite the fact that he couldn't prove the fairly obvious point that CdaM had gained its "info" from police sources.
Libel is a judgment on falsehoods that lower reputation.
Amaral's book (and no doubt, film, though I've never watched it) is littered with falsehoods that lower reputation.
That is why Amaral lost the libel trial.
That is the classic definition of libel.
It is why Amaral lost.
Libel is a judgment on falsehoods that lower reputation.
Amaral's book (and no doubt, film, though I've never watched it) is littered with falsehoods that lower reputation.
That is why Amaral lost the libel trial.
That is the classic definition of libel.
It is why Amaral lost.
Merchandise remains on sale in the online store with 6 options for values of online donations.No it does not. A few buttons on a not-very-busy website does not equate to "actively campaigning" in my view, but no doubt you know better.
Does that not count?
No it does not. A few buttons on a not-very-busy website does not equate to "actively campaigning" in my view, but no doubt you know better.
I'd agree with you that that's his book had zero chance of being published in the UK, and why his "documentary" had no chance of being picked up by a mainstream UK channel.
PT, however, is a different world.
Only in where burden of proof lies.
The majority of this case was settled in written submissions, just not seen on line.
If they had been seen on line Ms Baulch's fund would scarcely have a euro in it.
If the dog hadn't stopped running he would have caught the bunny.The bunny is caught, I think, but at present it is in the wrong burrow.
The bunny is caught, I think, but at present it is in the wrong burrow.
Did you go to Ampleforth College by any chance? You sound just like someone I know who went there.
Interesting...@dave1 The original portuguese text of Mr Amaral's note of gratitude is available for you
Dear friends,
Today, the 15th of June, my appeal against the sentence that has recently been produced in the trial concerning my book, "Maddie, A Verdade da Mentira", was filed at the Civil Court of Lisbon.
according to this amaral is appealing against the sentence...not the verdict...if we can trust the translation
@dave1 The original portuguese text of Mr Amaral's note of gratitude is available for youso it could mean one of three but PJGA have translated it as "sentence"...so it's basically impossible to get an exact translation...must be the same for the files...most of which have been translated twice...I trust you understand what that means for their accuracy
http://pjga.blogspot.co.uk/
The original word is there.
"sentença" Look it up in a dictionary.
The meanings include "sentence" "judgement" and "verdict".
Only in where burden of proof lies.
The majority of this case was settled in written submissions, just not seen on line.
If they had been seen on line Ms Baulch's fund would scarcely have a euro in it.
@dave1 The original portuguese text of Mr Amaral's note of gratitude is available for you
http://pjga.blogspot.co.uk/
The original word is there.
"sentença" Look it up in a dictionary.
The meanings include "sentence" "judgement" and "verdict".
so is amaral appealing against his sentence or the verdict
I hope all those who question the inaccuracies in the McCanns statement realise how inaccurate the translations may be
so is amaral appealing against his sentence or the verdict@dave1 I gave you the original word. "sentença" That is what Mr Amaral wrote. Look it up in a dictionary and translate it for us.
I hope all those who question the inaccuracies in the McCanns statement realise how inaccurate the translations may be
@dave1 I gave you the original word. "sentença" That is what Mr Amaral wrote. Look it up in a dictionary and translate it for us.You don't seem to understand......it has several meanings
You don't seem to understand......it has several meaningsSo use the context and your knowledge from elsewhere to work out what it means.
So use the context and your knowledge from elsewhere to work out what it means.
The irony is no-one here even knows the name of the fund paying the other side's much higher legal costs, it is so expertly concealed.
PJ GA have translated it as "sentence"...have they got it wrong...perhaps they have...we don't know
Don't worry dave.
Just be patient. 8(>((
So use the context and your knowledge from elsewhere to work out what it means.
The irony is no-one here even knows the name of the fund paying the other side's much higher legal costs, it is so expertly concealed.
it's amaral who has all his assets frozen and is totally broken...as he tells us....it can take the rest of his life for all I care
Of course dave.
and the mccanns will get nothing but LEGAL BILLS.
Very Nice.
and amaral supporters will continue to get legal bills...Kate could just write another book....it would certainly be a best seller like the other one
Of course dave, of course. @)(++(* @)(++(* @)(++(*
THE CASE HAS RUINED ME: Dagbladet met Amaral just hours before the trial against him started in Lisbon. He said the case has ruined him. All his assets are frozen until a verdict is made - which may take years. Photo: Per Lars Tronstad.
do you not understand what has happened
Yes, we know all about the mccanns need for revenge and money.
As you have seen dave, Amaral has people backing him.
Now we await the next round, about a years time, as has been indicated.
Of course dave.
and the mccanns will get nothing but LEGAL BILLS.
Very Nice.
There's a sign on the wall but she wants to be sure
'Cause you know sometimes words have two meanings.
Ooh, it makes me wonder,
And sadly does nothing to contribute to find Madeleine. The very fact that they tried to sue and get money for 'harm' done to Maddie by the book I found to be the most bizarre and gut wrenching . I mean they expected to be paid money in Maddies name? WTF? No court was ever going to award money to persons mortal state unknown!
At the same time they claimed that their behaviour caused no harm to Maddie?
A seriously bad move to sue Amaral. They can't even get the verdict overturned. The fact now remains the court did not find AMARAL HAD LIAIBLED them.... oh dear double whammy!
yet amaral supporters claim the case is about justice for maddie...what a bunch of liars
Well Davel, I thought it was about justice for Amaral? in his fight against the parents who violated his freedom of expression.
I would add that I don't think the family or Amarals book was ever about Justice for Maddie. Both gave their reasons for writing. both made money end of story....should have been left there.
plenty of posts on the fund me page ...plus poulton ...promoting the case as justice for maddie...a fraudulent fund
it's amaral who has all his assets frozen and is totally broken...as he tells us....it can take the rest of his life for all I care
I can wait...whilst amaral continues his miserable existence..let it go on
I am beginning to wonder if the fund which pays for the expensive services of Alvis Doubte And Smothers and all their assistants is located offshore. Reason is I have searched for UK companies for all the obvious directors and can't find the fund. Where is it? It must exist. Channel Islands maybe?
I am beginning to wonder if the fund which pays for the expensive services of Alvis Doubte And Smothers and all their assistants is located offshore. Reason is I have searched for UK companies for all the obvious directors and can't find the fund. Where is it? It must exist. Channel Islands maybe?
Oh dear, Pegasus. Its quite amusing to see you turn somersaults in your anxiety over the funding.The attempts to discredit the highly transparent work of PJGA have spurred me to ask, where is the fund that pays the more expensive and numerous portuguese and english lawyers on the other side in this legal case? Who paid for 5 foreign tourists to issue the ex-parte injunction which started this? I am sure those billionaires who donated money specifically for legal expenses would need to see a formal entity to administer their legal expenses donations, like a ltd company with directors, but where is it?
You can rest assured that their is sufficient funding that neither side will be at a financial disadvantage in this court case. 8(0(*
The attempts to discredit the highly transparent work of PJGA have spurred me to ask, where is the fund that pays the more expensive and numerous portuguese and english lawyers on the other side in this legal case? Who paid for 5 foreign tourists to issue the ex-parte injunction which started this? I am sure those billionaires who donated money specifically for legal expenses would need to see a formal entity to administer their legal expenses donations, like a ltd company with directors, but where is it?The PJGA fund is not "highly transparent". we have no idea where all the money is, nor how much has been spent or what it has been spent on.
The attempts to discredit the highly transparent work of PJGA have spurred me to ask, where is the fund that pays the more expensive and numerous portuguese and english lawyers on the other side in this legal case? Who paid for 5 foreign tourists to issue the ex-parte injunction which started this? I am sure those billionaires who donated money specifically for legal expenses would need to see a formal entity to administer their legal expenses donations, like a ltd company with directors, but where is it?
The PJGA fund is not "highly transparent". we have no idea where all the money is, nor how much has been spent or what it has been spent on.And what is your opinion of the fund paying for the lawyers on the other side?
And what is your opinion of the fund paying for the lawyers on the other side?
Sorry - it really is none of our business. As for my trying to discredit the PJGA fund - you are having a laugh.I respect you forum friend and am not laughing at you, I am laughing at the PR advisors who have been beaten by a tiny appeal started by one young person. 40K within a few weeks IMO.
I respect you forum friend and am not laughing at you, I am laughing at the PR advisors who have been beaten by a tiny appeal started by one young person. 40K within a few weeks IMO.
And what is your opinion of the fund paying for the lawyers on the other side?
You seem to forget all the money Kate and Gerry and their Friends have put into the fund. What has Amaral put into his?Amaral is a taker.
Are the mccanns asking for donations to fund their legal adventures?Reportedly billionaires made donations specifically for legal expenses. The biggest donations to GFM appeal are two donations of a grand, so far.
Amaral wrote a book and made a video which infringed the mccanns rights and to line his own pockets. The mccanns have taken action in the Portuguese courts to defend their rights and have thus far been successful.
And what is your opinion of the fund paying for the lawyers on the other side?I don't really care tbh, but please don't make out that Amaral's Fund is completely transparent, it's anything but IMO.
Hypothetically, would the GBP donate to that appeal if they knew there was 2million Euros in it?To fund fighting against Mr Amaral's appeal?
Amaral is a taker.
The Mccanns are givers.
Amaral has told us he is appealing against the sentence...he hasn't mentioned the verdict or judgement...a big climbdown
Wrong dave.amaral's own words..
Just wait for the appeal.
amaral's own words..
Did he speak them ?
Or were they typed on his behalf ?
you mean like the mccanns statements
i.e. It wasn't given directly from Amaral, was it ?
Can you speak Portuguese now dave ?
always could
In this context "sentença " is most accurately transalted as "decision" which encompasses the verdict of the court on the various issue raised, and the remedy.
In this context "sentença " is most accurately transalted as "decision" which encompasses the verdict of the court on the various issue raised, and the remedy.
In this context "sentença " is most accurately transalted as "decision" which encompasses the verdict of the court on the various issue raised, and the remedy.
A voice of reason, thanks.
Questions for you, JP:
- Can any elements from the injunction phase be brought up (e.g., if it was felt that points weren't adequately considered by the judge) or is that necessarily done and dusted?
- Can any new factual material be introduced to support an argument (by either side)?
It certainly illustrates the nuances where the translation of just one word can totally alter the meaning of a sentence.
It is important to understand that an appeal is not a retrial. The appeal will concern itself with the points raised by the appellant.
In exceptional circumstances, the appeal court will allow one or other party to introduce, by affidavit, new evidence on matters that weren’t heard at the original trial.
However, before the appeal court will hear that evidence, the court must be persuaded that:
the evidence could not have been called at trial,
• the evidence is relevant because it relates to an issue that was a deciding factor,
• the evidence is reliable, and
• the evidence could reasonably be expected to have affected the outcome (when taken with the other evidence presented at the trial).
It’s hard to satisfy all of these conditions, so applications to introduce new evidence are very rarely successful.
I was aware that it wouldn't be a retrial, but thanks for clarifying that point.
What about the first question?
Was the pun intended? ;)
The answer to the first question is: The appeal will concern itself with the points raised by the appellant.
It will not concern itself with points from the previous phase (unless they have a direct impact on the matters raised by the appellant).
Thanks, that's what I thought. Reference appears to be made to some kind of instruction phase. If that's the case, I imagine that some points would have been battled out then, but then Amaral has a habit of changing lawyers.
The higher court will confine itself to matters that the appellant disputes, and is able to provide reasons why the decision should be modified or reversed. This latter point is important - it is not enough for the appellant to say "I disagree" or "I don't like the decision" - he or she must argue their case.
The respondants will then have a chance to submit their argument(s) in writing, and the case will then be considered by the court. The court may choose to request the sides to present their cases in person.
If the second court produces the same decision, then the matter ends there. If there is a dispute, it may proceed to the supreme court.
I would not rule out the long haul of it being referred to the supreme court, then the European Court? ... contributors to the fund will need to organise car boot or garage sales to keep up.
Does any one know if the Portuguese press have reported on the appeal yet, I've seen nothing internationally or in ours.
In this context "sentença " is most accurately transalted as "decision" which encompasses the verdict of the court on the various issue raised, and the remedy.
UPDATE
Maddie cop launches appeal against McCann’s record damages ‘win’ of €500,000
(http://i.imgur.com/Cc5v4Ht.jpg?1)
15 June 2015
(http://portugalresident.com/sites/default/files/styles/node-detail/public/field/image/Amaral.jpg?itok=C_hIvc5J)
Following a huge crowd-funding drive that has raised over £29,000 from well-wishers almost exclusively from the UK, former police inspector Gonçalo Amaral has today filed his appeal against the €500,000-plus damages awarded against him in a civil case taken out by the parents of Madeleine McCann. The Projecto Justiça Gonçalo Amaral published the news this morning, thanking “each and every one” of the nearly 2000 people who have given money to the British gofundme appeal that has helped take Amaral’s legal fight to its next stage. As the message went out, donations continued apace - with over £390 raised in a matter of hours. Several of the day’s donors commented this was “news worth celebrating”, but more than one suggested the story is “unlikely to be covered by mainstream media”. Indeed, by coincidence British media is much more focused today on Madeleine’s mother Kate who is leading a bike ride for a missing people’s charity. Kate McCann has told reporters that she is “really encouraged” by progress being made by police in the eight-year hunt for her daughter. Meantime, the gofundme appeal - started by a young Birmingham woman who was only 14 when Madeleine went missing - is set to continue. Updates are promised - though with the speed of Portuguese justice it is anyone’s guess when Amaral’s appeal will be set a date for hearing. As readers may be aware, the long-running civil case taken out by Madeleine’s parents centred on claims Amaral made in his book The Truth of the Lie in which he suggested the McCanns had faked their daughter’s abduction. The McCann’s said the book caused them “devastation, desperation, anxiety and pain”. Amaral’s supporters however claim they “will not let this case pass into obscurity” and “do not tolerate the leaving of unanswered questions”.
natasha.donn@algarveresident.com
www.portugalresident.com/maddie-cop-launches-appeal-against-mccann’s-record-damages-‘win’-of-€500000
In your opinion...that's the fourth different translation given...whilst the PJGA website translate it as sentence...what makes you think they are wrong
What does it actually matter - this is just playing semantics. "Decision" is the best word to use for what has actually happened - ie the court has delivered its verdicts and pronounced on its remedy - i.e it has decided or "made a decision".
Judgement - that would work too.
Sentence is definitely the wrong word - not used in civil cases.
Verdict - could be ok - but does not go far enough. Because the court has delivered bot a verdicts and also pronounced on the remedy.
So you can take your pick.
It isn't playing semantics.......many posters have claimed amaral has little ground for appeal apart from the level of damages......
What you are highlighting is that all the translated files are similarly open to interpretation...that is not semantics
The higher court will confine itself to matters that the appellant disputes, and is able to provide reasons why the decision should be modified or reversed. This latter point is important - it is not enough for the appellant to say "I disagree" or "I don't like the decision" - he or she must argue their case.
The respondants will then have a chance to submit their argument(s) in writing, and the case will then be considered by the court. The court may choose to request the sides to present their cases in person.
If the second court produces the same decision, then the matter ends there. If there is a dispute, it may proceed to the supreme court.
I am among them. But any translation is open to interpretation, as you well know, even professional ones.
So amateur ones are very dangerous. There really is no point in arguing over the precise meanings in a translated word or phrase.
absolutely...so we still do not really know if amaral has appealed against the sentence or the verdict
Appeals can be raised challenging facts in the case, or points of law.cannot an appeal be based solely against the level of damages
If successful, the effect on the decision of the court will then be determined.
cannot an appeal be based solely against the level of damages
Turn it around. He may hope to overturn the ruling entirely, or simply limit the amount awarded in compensation. In order to attempt to do so, he has to challenge the bases of the ruling (based on points of law or fact, or both).
Yep, but the injunction circus seems to have been more complicated than that, according to Kate's book.
An injunction was filed, which was rejected (any damage already done).
They appealed, and won.
GA counter appealed, and lost.
GA appealed to the SC and won.
Unless I got lost somewhere along the way...
Turn it around. He may hope to overturn the ruling entirely, or simply limit the amount awarded in compensation. In order to attempt to do so, he has to challenge the bases of the ruling (based on points of law or fact, or both).
Not correct, sorry.
An injunction was filed, there were then the court hearings. The judge in that case upheld the injunction. Gonçalo Amaral appealed and won when the Tribunal da Relação overturned the injunction and the book ban. The McCanns then appealed to the Supreme Court and lost.
Not correct, sorry.
An injunction was filed, there were then the court hearings. The judge in that case upheld the injunction. Gonçalo Amaral appealed and won when the Tribunal da Relação overturned the injunction and the book ban. The McCanns then appealed to the Supreme Court and lost.
So Amaral is guilty of libel.
By English libel law, Amaral is guilty of libel.
By Portuguese libel law (more exacting in terms of what must be shown before libel is taken as proved) Amaral is guilty of libel.
Amaral himself does not dispute the fact.
Amaral's dispute is that damage awarded to the McCanns (in respect of proven and established libel) is too high.
How much of the money in the fund will be needed to mount that defence?
Can you remind us ferryman of what the trial was about and what the mccanns failed to prove ?
The McCanns proved that Amaral libelled them.
It wasn't a libel trial ferryman.
Likewise the accidental death thesis has not been disproved, but you know that.
I see the money in the defence fund has now topped £30,000 (thirty thousand pounds) ....
I don't know how much of that money would be needed to mount such a defence.£30K is less than the initial estimated cost of appealing.
But if enough (I would have thought so) why is the appeal still running?
It wasn't a libel trial ferryman.
Likewise the accidental death thesis has not been disproved, but you know that.
£30K is less than the initial estimated cost of appealing.
I predict GFM will go over £100K when the GBP really hear about it.
Its important that it does, so the GBP can stick their fingers in the air at a couple of billionaires who pay the other side's legal expenses
My understanding is that whatever happened to the child hasn't been proven in a criminal court, and is therefore not applicable to this civil case.
And that goes both ways, but IMO that decision (which was also the case in the Murat appeal) has made it more difficult for the McCanns.
I don't see how this case would have seen the light of day in a UK court if Amaral had had to actually substantiate anything beyond waving a police record in the air.
Are documents submitted in the 2008 High Court case publicly accessible?
How were the estimated costs of appealing arrived at?Presumably estimated hours at xxx euros an hour plus court fees costs etc.
£30K is less than the initial estimated cost of appealing.
I predict GFM will go over £100K when the GBP really hear about it.
Its important that it does, so the GBP can stick their fingers in the air at a couple of billionaires who pay the other side's legal expenses
In respect of what?To get a copy of a document submitted by LP to the HC in 2008 and to send it to Portugal.
To get a copy of a document submitted by LP to the HC in 2008 and to send it to Portugal.
I think that you are correct that Mr Amaral will want a great deal more to be contributed to his fund ... and I am sure there are those among his following who will feel themselves only too privileged to keep their contributions going.Yes the silence of the press (in both countries) is a mystery.
I fear you will be greatly disappointed if you are holding out the hope the Great British Public will be falling over themselves to contribute ... I think the number of those willing to give him money has reached its zenith ... and any future number count will rely on repeat donations just as the present one does.
Surely Portuguese contributors must also be digging deep although neither you nor I know what is going in and what is going out of the PJGA account.
The mystery at the moment is where are the Portuguese Press in all this ... so far they seem underwhelmed.
If, by that, you mean the case wouldn't have seen light of day in UK court because Amaral's guilt (of libel!) would be inarguable, then agreed.
That's why neither Amaral's book nor his video would have seen light of day (for sale!) in England.
But if you mean anything else, then disagreed.
About what?You presumably have the book on your shelf. Page 316. Can Joe Public apply to the High Court office for a copy of this document?
Yes the silence of the press (in both countries) is a mystery.
We know the two current SIOs have been very busy working together this year but have released no information about what they are doing. Is it possible the two SIOs have 'arranged' for press in both countries to keep quiet about the whole case for a while? Wouldn't it be great if they are about to really solve the case?
Yes the silence of the press (in both countries) is a mystery.What does "really solve the case" mean to you? Does it mean actually solve it, or does it mean charge the McCanns with something?
We know the two current SIOs have been very busy working together this year but have released no information about what they are doing. Is it possible the two SIOs have 'arranged' for press in both countries to keep quiet about the whole case for a while? Wouldn't it be great if they are about to really solve the case?
Yes the silence of the press (in both countries) is a mystery.
We know the two current SIOs have been very busy working together this year but have released no information about what they are doing. Is it possible the two SIOs have 'arranged' for press in both countries to keep quiet about the whole case for a while? Wouldn't it be great if they are about to really solve the case?
What does "really solve the case" mean to you? Does it mean actually solve it, or does it mean charge the McCanns with something?
....as opposed to only charge someone else.No, if the Met find strong evidence to charge the McCanns I will be astounded, disappointed but also glad that the case has been solved (assuming they were also found guilty). If someone else is charged would you go through similar emotions?
No, if the Met find strong evidence to charge the McCanns I will be astounded, disappointed but also glad that the case has been solved (assuming they were also found guilty). If someone else is charged would you go through similar emotions?
Given the same evidence, yes.Why would you be disappointed if the McCanns were proven not to be guilty?
To be clear, the prosecutors said that Kate and Gerry could not, reasonably, have been expected to foresee abduction ....
That does not mean they believed there was one, (which is what you are trying to suggest is true,) as evidenced by their saying the nature of the crime is unknown.
They used that (as well as other scenarios) as an example of any danger befalling the children but as usual you have cherry picked
Of course it does ...
No it does not, it can't possibly mean that for the reason I gave before.
The prosecutors eliminated abandonment (a possible charge) then said this:
The parents could not foresee that in the resort that they chose to spend a brief holiday, they could place the life of any of their children in danger, nor was that demanded from them: it was located in a peaceful area, where most of the residents are foreign citizens of the same nationality and without any known history of this type of criminality.
So what did the prosecutors decline to rule out as something the McCanns might be guilty of?
The prosecutors eliminated abandonment (a possible charge) then said this:
The parents could not foresee that in the resort that they chose to spend a brief holiday, they could place the life of any of their children in danger, nor was that demanded from them: it was located in a peaceful area, where most of the residents are foreign citizens of the same nationality and without any known history of this type of criminality.
So what did the prosecutors decline to rule out as something the McCanns might be guilty of?
Why would you be disappointed if the McCanns were proven not to be guilty?
they are tlking about the wilful neglect, you still have to prove the prosecutirs have said there WAS an abduction
I may have missed it
- Despite all of this, it was not possible to obtain any piece of evidence that would allow for a medium man, under the light of the criteria of logics, of normality and of the general rules of experience, to formulate any lucid, sensate, serious and honest conclusion about the circumstances under which the child was removed from the apartment (whether dead or alive, whether killed in a neglectful homicide or an intended homicide, whether the victim of a targeted abduction or an opportunistic abduction), nor even to produce a consistent prognosis about her destiny and inclusively - the most dramatic - to establish whether she is still alive or if she is dead, as seems more likely.
nope, try again, all that says is they are at a loss to know what happened
You are the one who ought to try again ...
... so far you have failed to convince me
I'm sure I'll find a way to cope ....
its not about YOU "coping" its about you backing up your assertions, shouldnt be hard if theyre true
I do, fully, understand why you fail to comprehend that I have ...
you have done no such thing Ferryman..we all know you cherry pick and misconstrue evidence as well to please yourself...just not good enough
In case you missed it, the prosecutors couldn't decide whether Madeleine was victim of targeted or opportunistic abduction.
Since Scotland Yard are investigating a series of robberies at the time, that tends to suggest they think opportunistic
But definitely abduction ....
no no no, they said alot more than that, cherry picking again lol, cutting and pasting but never in full, it will never wash
I've given you the direct quotes that prove what I say.
Just remind me what it was exactly that you claim before i confidently rebut you
Pls dont say the pps confirmed madeleine was abducted because you will lose
Back later or tomorrow
In case you missed it, the prosecutors couldn't decide whether Madeleine was victim of targeted or opportunistic abduction.Really?
Since Scotland Yard are investigating a series of robberies at the time, that tends to suggest they think opportunistic
But definitely abduction ....
If you need reminding, that bodes ill for your apparent resolve to "rebut" me.
You've made the wisest choice to retire from the fray (defeated!)
In case you missed it, the prosecutors couldn't decide whether Madeleine was victim of targeted or opportunistic abduction.
Since Scotland Yard are investigating a series of robberies at the time, that tends to suggest they think opportunistic
But definitely abduction ....
I don't know where they get the idea that hotels do not inform the police of burglaries? I worked in 3 different resorts and whenever there was a break-in or a burglary reported by a client, we got in touch with the GNR immediately, who came as quickly as possible. Even if it was not possible to catch the culprit, it at least gave the clients the chance to make an insurance claim, using the police document.
Just guessing, but some of them seem to have occurred in unlocked apartments. I assume no insurance claim would be paid in that case, so perhaps no-one bothered to get the 'incident number' or the Portuguese equivalent? I wonder if Mrs Fenn's incident was reported by her when it happened? We don't know, do we.A wild card, eh?
Just guessing, but some of them seem to have occurred in unlocked apartments. I assume no insurance claim would be paid in that case, so perhaps no-one bothered to get the 'incident number' or the Portuguese equivalent? I wonder if Mrs Fenn's incident was reported by her when it happened? We don't know, do we.
Whenever a client came to the reception to report a burglary, we always called the GNR immediately. Never did we say to the client that it was not worth getting the police involved. I cannot imagine any other resort ignoring the client's complaint.
As for Mrs.Fenn's incident, all we know is that her niece mentioned it. Whether it was true or not, we don't know.
Whenever a client came to the reception to report a burglary, we always called the GNR immediately. Never did we say to the client that it was not worth getting the police involved. I cannot imagine any other resort ignoring the client's complaint.
As for Mrs.Fenn's incident, all we know is that her niece mentioned it. Whether it was true or not, we don't know.
From that statement it sounds as if burglaries were far from rare. Pity MW didn't give their clients a warning about burglaries at the Welcome meeting. Things could have been very different.
Why on earth would Mrs. Fenn's niece decide to lie about her aunt being the victim of an attempted burglary? Please clarify.
Petty burglaries i.e. money or valuables taken to feed their drug habit. Not violent crimes where they beat up occupants they scarper if seen. So why are they going to be scared by a 3 year old child and take her never mind silence her. If anybody heard screaming from that apartment then we can investigate it further or a sign of a break-in - glove marks etc. Burglars are only being investigated because of the raised shutters and open window facing the car park. Anybody watching an unlocked apartment wouldn't need to waste time or risk being caught. In out job done.
That certainly changed @)(++(*
Why is the title of that "David Hughes lies about legal costs"? The context would have been about their own defence if ever the case had come to trial.
The GFM appeal is now at £31,418.
That is well over the target. And it won't be long before it reaches £40,000 IMO.
And all this despite the UK press being told to not mention the GFM appeal in their current Cyprus diversion stories.
At present most of the Great British Public are unaware of the GFM appeal, just imagine what will happen to the donation rate when they find out?
What on earth does the latest Amaral-appeal fund have in common with the Cyprus stories?The UK press's Anastasia articles all mention the PDL case don't they?.
The UK press's Anastasia articles all mention the PDL case don't they?.
Therefore the appeal by the original SIO against a legal attack by Brits and funded by hundreds of thousands of pounds is relevant to mention.
The appeal had the column inches it deserved.I think the people who buy UK papers and watch UK TV would be interested to know about the outstanding success of the GFM appeal. IMO the appeal will be staggeringly popular when the UKMSM are finally allowed to honestly report on it. Brits like an underdog.
However, the attempted abduction of British children from a holiday resort should be major headlines. If nothing else, it will serve as a potent reminder for parents to take extra care of their children while holidaying.
One can only speculate as to the level of social media hostility, against the parents of these children, which would have ensued had the kidnappers been successful.
I think the people who buy UK papers and watch UK TV would be interested to know about the outstanding success of the GFM appeal. IMO the appeal will be staggeringly popular when the UKMSM are finally allowed to honestly report on it. Brits like an underdog.
Good luck with this. The appeal has been funded by people with an interest in the case.
"And all this despite the UK press being told to not mention the GFM appeal in their current Cyprus diversion stories" ? Can we have a cite please? because you really are talking absolute balderdash, as usual.
I don't think most normal people find Amaral has any appeal whatsoever. 8(0(*
Most normal people ?
i.e. mccann supporters ? @)(++(* @)(++(* @)(++(*
Has there been independent corroboration that Amaral has been granted leave to appeal?
"Most normal people" excludes by definition every member of this forum.
Good luck with this. The appeal has been funded by people with an interest in the case.It may seem like balderdash to you but Brits do like integrity and a man who quotes churchill not clever lawyers.
"And all this despite the UK press being told to not mention the GFM appeal in their current Cyprus diversion stories" ? Can we have a cite please? because you really are talking absolute balderdash, as usual.
I don't think most normal people find Amaral has any appeal whatsoever. 8(0(*
Good luck with this. The appeal has been funded by people with an interest in the case.
"And all this despite the UK press being told to not mention the GFM appeal in their current Cyprus diversion stories" ? Can we have a cite please? because you really are talking absolute balderdash, as usual.
I don't think most normal people find Amaral has any appeal whatsoever. 8(0(*
It may seem like balderdash to you but Brits do like integrity and a man who quotes churchill not clever lawyers.
I will try to find a cite for the Brit press stories being manipulated.
I'm sorry to disappoint JP, but I have spoken to people who don't view or go on this forum, and very few believe the mccanns story, though they feel sympathy for loss of a child.
It may seem like balderdash to you but Brits do like integrity and a man who quotes churchill not clever lawyers.
I will try to find a cite for the Brit press stories being manipulated.
It may seem like balderdash to you but Brits do like integrity and a man who quotes churchill not clever lawyers.
I will try to find a cite for the Brit press stories being manipulated.
One small expat paper published an honest article but I saw nothing from SIC CdM RTP etc. I have already said that IMO this may be because the two police forces are together making real genuine progress and MSM here and there have been nudged to keep quiet for now, just my opinion.
What a strange existence it must be to spend leisure time posting unkindly about Madeleine McCann's parents and apparently being so obsessed it continues as your subject of conversation in the real world.
Wrong again brietta.
The number of conversations I have had about it would be in single figures.
However, you're undeniably obsessive in your support of the mccanns on here.
Meanwhile how many times do you discuss this case outside the forum ? 8(*(
Integrity? Really?You probably would refuse a "men of integrity on video" duel?
I think you may have a rather distorted view, if you believe that this will be seen by the GBP as a case of heroic, plucky, Churchill quoting Amaral against the might of the evil McCanns, and they will rush to contribute to the "cause"
IMO he is more likely to be seen as an ex cop lining his pockets at the expense of a missing little girl and her grieving parents?
Wrong again brietta.
The number of conversations I have had about it would be in single figures.
However, you're undeniably obsessive in your support of the mccanns on here.
Meanwhile how many times do you discuss this case outside the forum ? 8(*(
You probably would refuse a "men of integrity on video" duel?
If you don't refuse I could start a thread and post just one video of a man of integrity so people can look the horse in the mouth and judge his integrity visually, body language and all. You can have as many shots as you wish by posting multiple videos showing any men of integrity on your side who you think display even one-hundreth the qualities of integrity that Mr Amaral does. 0546 ?
You probably would refuse a "men of integrity on video" duel?
If you don't refuse I could start a thread and post just one video of a man of integrity so people can look the horse in the mouth and judge his integrity visually, body language and all. You can have as many shots as you wish by posting multiple videos showing any men of integrity on your side who you think display even one-hundreth the qualities of integrity that Mr Amaral does. 0546 ?
You probably would refuse a "men of integrity on video" duel?So, you post a youtube vid of Gonc, then I'd post a vid of Archbishop of York John Sentamu and you'd win, is that how this Men Of Integrity duel thing work then?
If you don't refuse I could start a thread and post just one video of a man of integrity so people can look the horse in the mouth and judge his integrity visually, body language and all. You can have as many shots as you wish by posting multiple videos showing any men of integrity on your side who you think display even one-hundreth the qualities of integrity that Mr Amaral does. 0546 ?
Sorry - no idea what you are getting at Pegasus.So presumably you have never watched an interview video and thought, yes, everything is right, he talks straight, answers questions directly, never evades or manipulates, this is a man I would trust.
As for amaral as a man of integrity - a couple of Portuguese courts, one criminal and one civil, dibt seem to think much of his much vaunted 'integrity' and I am happy to be guided by them.
Maybe you will have your ear to the ground and be able to speculate when the Portuguese press are going to report anything at all about Mr Amaral's appeal. No interviews on the TV or in the press ?? the silence is deafening.
So presumably you have never watched an interview video and thought, yes, everything is right, he talks straight, answers questions directly, never evades or manipulates, this is a man I would trust.Everything I have seen and heard of Amaral makes me utterly convinced that there is a man I would not trust as far as I could fling him.
So presumably you have never watched an interview video and thought, yes, everything is right, he talks straight, answers questions directly, never evades or manipulates, this is a man I would trust.
So, you post a youtube vid of Gonc, then I'd post a vid of Archbishop of York John Sentamu and you'd win, is that how this Men Of Integrity duel thing work then?The duel was not accepted so forget it. The other side have no "man of integrity" video to duel with mine, I have had a lucky escape.
So presumably you have never watched an interview video and thought, yes, everything is right, he talks straight, answers questions directly, never evades or manipulates, this is a man I would trust.
The duel was not accepted so forget it. The other side have no "man of integrity" video to duel with mine, I have had a lucky escape.Oh dear, this place is getting more like the playground every day. Top Trumps anyone?
Everything I have seen and heard of Amaral makes me utterly convinced that there is a man I would not trust as far as I could fling him.I am talking about in video interview the way a man talks, his body-language, his complete absence of evasiveness, his direct answering of questions. This is how a good horse dealer buys a horse, or trusts a man.
I am talking about in video interview the way a man talks, his body-language, his complete absence of evasiveness, his direct answering of questions. This is how a good horse dealer buys a horse, or trusts a man.I've never watched an interview with Amaral in which he was challenged or asked any difficult questions. He only ever seems to be asked questions by members of his own fanclub.
Good evening. I haven't posted for a very long time but read on most days. Often I chuckle at posts but tonight I feel compelled to "voice" my loud chuckle at your post Alfred.8((()*/ Glad to have provided a moment of mirth amongst the madness. @)(++(*
8((()*/
ETA the one about the Top Trumps.
In the past few hours someone has donated £200 and someone else £50 towards the costs of Mr Amaral's appeal. These IMO are serious large amounts not just small change.
In the past few hours someone has donated £200 and someone else £50 towards the costs of Mr Amaral's appeal. These IMO are serious large amounts not just small change.How can we be sure these donations are not being recycled? After all, we know that funds have been withdrawn / refunded (though we have no idea exactly how much). It would be very simple to manipulate ths fund to get it up to £100k or more. In fact there is no limit to how many times these donations can be withdrawn and re-deposited is there? Well not until all the money's gone in fees to GoFundMe anyway... @)(++(*
How can we be sure these donations are not being recycled? After all, we know that funds have been withdrawn / refunded (though we have no idea exactly how much). It would be very simple to manipulate ths fund to get it up to £100k or more. In fact there is no limit to how many times these donations can be withdrawn and re-deposited is there? Well not until all the money's gone in fees to GoFundMe anyway... @)(++(*
Sorry - no idea what you are getting at Pegasus.
As for amaral as a man of integrity - a couple of Portuguese courts, one criminal and one civil, dibt seem to think much of his much vaunted 'integrity' and I am happy to be guided by them.
Are you suggesting that petermac ...the pretyendy policeman could have donated £1000 supposedly from a group of coppers .....then had his donation refunded....I wouldn't put it past that lot@dave1 Do you visit the FMF fund website ? Please help by confirming they have now corrected their advertised aims?
Are you suggesting that petermac ...the pretyendy policeman could have donated £1000 supposedly from a group of coppers .....then had his donation refunded....I wouldn't put it past that lotThat donator gave £1000 with a credit or debit card. I see no reason to doubt the fact it came from a group of police personnel. Next you'll be claiming the magistrate's relative £1000 is fabricated? And the donating journalist fed up with being forced to write pink rubbish in the UK press while his/her honest articles were not printed. Is that a fake too?
It is hilarious how some are chewing the carpet and seem beside themselves because Mr Amaral is getting help for his legal bills from people who support his David and Goliath challenge, so to speak.Yes and thanks to Leanne, Mr Amaral now has a solid base of moral support from many hundreds of the great british public. It's far greater than the public support if any for the initiator of this legal case. And it will multiply tenfold when the Sun rises IMO.
It is not illegal, it is transparent and clear, so what is the problem? Rhetorical question, no answers wanted. 30k raised or so versus millions. Nuff said, as the Cockneys say.
Yes and thanks to Leanne, Mr Amaral now has a solid base of moral support from many hundreds of the great british public. It's far greater than the public support if any for the initiator of this legal case. And it will multiply tenfold when the Sun rises IMO.
From a recent post on the site.....The appeal obviously of huge importance to the person who started this years ago with his injunction.
Fact, evidence confirms someone died in apartment 5a.
The site is based on lies and Leanne is allowing lies to be told on the site...amaral's appeal is of no importance...SY will continue to investigate
The appeal obviously of huge importance to the person who started this years ago with his injunction.
The appeal will determine whether Mr Amaral's opponent wins, or loses.
Rather important.
Things were very different when this started...amaral has been totally discredited by now...as have his "troll supporters"...not my words
Things were very different when this started...amaral has been totally discredited by now...as have his "troll supporters"...not my wordsSo why doesn't the individual who started this case against the SIO now drop it?
So why doesn't the individual who started this case against the SIO now drop it?
Answer - because it is very important.
If he loses against Mr Amaral's appeal will you just say oh it was of no importance?
So why doesn't the individual who started this case against the SIO now drop it?
Answer - because it is very important.
If he loses against Mr Amaral's appeal will you just say oh it was of no importance?
Much more sensible for Mr Amaral to accept the judgement of the court I would think. In that way everyone could get on with their lives ... including him.If Dave1's opinion is correct that Mr Amaral has lost all credibility, then how can the book possibly harm the search?
If Dave1's opinion is correct that Mr Amaral has lost all credibility, then how can the book possibly harm the search?that was not the case when the action was taken out...all those years ago things were very different
Much more sensible for Mr Amaral to accept the judgement of the court I would think. In that way everyone could get on with their lives ... including him.
So why doesn't the individual who started this case against the SIO now drop it?
Answer - because it is very important.
If he loses against Mr Amaral's appeal will you just say oh it was of no importance?
If Dave1's opinion is correct that Mr Amaral has lost all credibility, then how can the book possibly harm the search?
Much more sensible ?
Put the blame firmly where it lies, for this whole case.
The mccanns exhibiting 'responsible parenting skills'. 8)-)))
Because before the court case the book was widely believed (by those who didn't read it critically)
The mccanns parenting was the same as the rest of the tapas...how is it nothing happened to their children
Because before the court case the book was widely believed (by those who didn't read it critically)
Did they all leave their children in unlocked accommodation ?
so is locked ok
Folk also believed they were getting an account that came straight from the horse's mouth - as Amaral carefully avoided mentioning that he had never met or spoken to Kate McCann in his life, and had only once briefly met Gerry. In fact he deliberately gave the opposite impression throughout.
That was dishonest IMO.
There is actually an interview with Amaral where he talks about observing Kate's reactions in a meeting with Kate.
It was supposed to be Kate's reaction to being asked about the 'sofa' theory (that Madeleine fell off it and died).
That question could only ever be put in arguido interview and Amaral played no part in those interviews.
Yes whenever the subject of his own personal contact with the McCanns came up (interviewers also seemed to have no idea that he had never met Kate and only briefly met Gerry) he wriggled and/or lied IMO.Please would you post links to the videos where Mr Amaral wriggles or lies about meeting the parents?
It's a pity that no-one ever asked him directly whether it was true that he had never met Kate or spoken to her in his life. But as far as I could see he was simply asked questions and then allowed to sit on the couch and say whatever he liked with no awkward questions being asked at any time.
I believe there was just one interview where he didn't get such an easy ride - but I can't remember who it was with.
All from memory so I'm happy to be corrected if necessary.
Please would you post links to the videos where Mr Amaral wriggles or lies about meeting the parents?
IMO in his video interviews his body language and straight talking show far greater integrity than the video interviews of any of the men who so desperately attack him.
If Dave1's opinion is correct that Mr Amaral has lost all credibility, then how can the book possibly harm the search?
a man who covered up torture....he has no integrity
IYO was there any contact between people working for Mr Amaral's arch-enemy, and that woman's lawyer?
The PJ wanted wanted to suspend him ... so by my reckoning that would seem to indicate that his integrity was shot to pieces with the people best placed to have an informed opinion on the matter.
PJ asks suspension for researchers
The Disciplinary Unit of the Judicial Police asks the suspension of Paulo Pereira Cristóvão, Gonçalo Amaral and three inspectors of the PJ alleged involvement in the case of aggressions against Leonor Cipriano, condemned by death and concealment of corpse daughter, Joan, in 2004.
Ler mais em: http://www.cmjornal.xl.pt/nacional/portugal/detalhe/pj-pede-suspensao-para-investigadores.html
If Mr Amaral has lost all his credibility, then no-one will listen to him, so he can't possibly impede the search, so why is his arch-enemy still continuing a court case against him?
IYO was there any contact between people working for Mr Amaral's arch-enemy, and that woman's lawyer?
What woman?The one in your post: LC.
The one in your post: LC.
I think you have gone off on a tangent on Mr Amaral's appeal and are allowing emotion to override that analytical brain of yours.I imagined reading that people working for the arch-enemy of Mr Amaral had been in touch with her lawyer, but I must be wrong. BTW I think Mr Amaral's "theydunit" conclusion is false, but there is something very odd about the lengths someone has gone to try to destroy him.
Dr Kate McCann is one of the injured parties here ... not Mr Amaral who has written a book which in my opinion was partly to deliberately traduce her and implicate her in her daughter's death and disappearance.
I think you have gone off on a tangent on Mr Amaral's appeal and are allowing emotion to override that analytical brain of yours.
Dr Kate McCann is one of the injured parties here ... not Mr Amaral who has written a book which in my opinion was partly to deliberately traduce her and implicate her in her daughter's death and disappearance.
I imagined reading that people working for the arch-enemy of Mr Amaral had been in touch with her lawyer, but I must be wrong. BTW I think Mr Amaral's "theydunit" conclusion is false, but there is something very odd about the lengths someone has gone to try to destroy him.
The only way K McCann is an injured party is she is innocent, that hasn't been declared by any any authority at least, and the Portuguese authorities have stated the nature of the crime is unknown, so, the lawsuit is a bit of an oxymoron to begin withThe judge made it very clear that the current legal case is not to decide what happened on May 3rd.
The only way K McCann is an injured party is she is innocent, that hasn't been declared by any any authority at least, and the Portuguese authorities have stated the nature of the crime is unknown, so, the lawsuit is a bit of an oxymoron to begin with
How extraordinary that you are so studiously ignoring Judge Maria Emília Melo e Castro' s ruling in this matter ...
Objects of FMF:
"To secure the safe return to her family of Madeleine McCann who was abducted in Praia da Luz, Portugal on Thursday 3rd May 2007;
To procure that Madeleine's abduction is thoroughly investigated and that her abductors, as well as those who played or play any part in assisting them, are identified and brought to justice"
Does paying legal expenses of the current legal case fall under those two objects?
(Note to mods - it is very relevant to this thread to know who pays both sides' legal expenses)
Objects of FMF:
"To secure the safe return to her family of Madeleine McCann who was abducted in Praia da Luz, Portugal on Thursday 3rd May 2007;
To procure that Madeleine's abduction is thoroughly investigated and that her abductors, as well as those who played or play any part in assisting them, are identified and brought to justice"
Does paying legal expenses of the current legal case fall under those two objects?
(Note to mods - it is very relevant to this thread to know who pays both sides' legal expenses)
the objectives of the fund appearing in the findmadeleine.com website state also financial assistance to the familyYou will find the correct list of objects at company house.
Btw I see my post of earlier has been deleted for some reason...the one stating the FUND paid for the legal expenses to sue Mr Amaral...how wierd
(snip)...Btw I see my post of earlier has been deleted for some reason...(snip)Forums software is not perfect, it will probably work 2nd time.
IMO it does, if the Fund is actually contributing.@misty If it is paying, would the expense of using Smethwick Alves and Duarte fall under the first, or the second "object"?
Forums software is not perfect, it will probably work 2nd time.
The only way K McCann is an injured party is she is innocent, that hasn't been declared by any any authority at least, and the Portuguese authorities have stated the nature of the crime is unknown, so, the lawsuit is a bit of an oxymoron to begin with
Which bit of "innocent until proven guilty" do you have a problem understanding?
@misty If it is paying, would the expense of using Smethwick Alves and Duarte fall under the first, or the second "object"?
And would donators reasonably have anticipated this interpretation?
Which bit of "innocent until proven guilty" do you have a problem understanding?"Presumed" innocent in a court of law is the correct phrase JP. I have no problem there.
It would fall under the second objective, IMO. The actions of the ex-SIO played no small part in assisting the abductor(s) escape justice.
As to the interpretation - the failings of the investigation were already apparent when the fund was set up, but no-one donating initially would have had a notion that a serving investigating officer would have written a book making libellous accusations against the parents & friends. He has twisted the knife time & time again and, for Madeleine's sake, he needs to be removed from the gravy train.
You cannot make that statement unless and until there is clear evidence of an abductor. Your statement is also ridiculously emotive and libellous, that Mr Amaral aided the "abductor". Seems you have been sucked into the murky mire.
Equally there is no clear evidence that there wasn't an abductor. Therefore a co-ordinator leading an investigation along a single pathway towards the parents, brushing everything & everybody aside regardless. can be considered as failing in his duty to investigate properly & assisting an offender to escape justice.
Equally there is no clear evidence that there wasn't an abductor. Therefore a co-ordinator leading an investigation along a single pathway towards the parents, brushing everything & everybody aside regardless. can be considered as failing in his duty to investigate properly & assisting an offender to escape justice.
Good, balanced, perspective, Misty.
The prosecutors were clear that they thought Madeleine was abducted, though they were uncertain whether by an opportunistic abductor or whether Madeleine was targeted.
Good, balanced, perspective, Misty.
The prosecutors were clear that they thought Madeleine was abducted, though they were uncertain whether by an opportunistic abductor or whether Madeleine was targeted.
The legal summary, just to remind you;
the investigation equated the verification of several hypotheses: abduction, for the purpose of sexual exploration or others (i.e. posterior adoption, child traffic, organ traffic), without homicide; abduction, followed by homicide with (or without) concealment of a cadaver, hypotheses that were considered under the double sides of the abduction (if it existed) having occurred due to feelings of vengeance of the abductor(s) towards the parents (directed abduction) or simply taking advantage of the circumstance that the child was in a situation of actual vulnerability (opportunity abduction), accidental death, with posterior concealment of the cadaver and, underlying all of these possibilities, abandonment, substantiated as a crime under article 138 of the Penal Code. The possibility of theft, whose author would have been disturbed by the child Madeleine and who, in order to prevent her from disturbing him, neutralised her in a violent manner, and, afterwards, took her with him, dead or alive, in order to leave no trace that could eventually lead to his identification................
........therefore we do not possess any minimally solid and rigorous foundation in order to be able to state, with the safety that is requested, which was or were the exact and precise crime(s) that was or were practised on the person of the minor Madeleine McCann
http://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/PJ/LEGAL_SUMMARY.htm
How many of the several hypotheses does Amaral promote in his book?
How many of the several hypotheses does Amaral promote in his book?
Stop changing the subject... The PPs did NOT say Madeleine was abducted as Ferryman says. deal with that first before you bore into Amaral
Equally there is no clear evidence that there wasn't an abductor. Therefore a co-ordinator leading an investigation along a single pathway towards the parents, brushing everything & everybody aside regardless. can be considered as failing in his duty to investigate properly & assisting an offender to escape justice.
The PPs said abduction was one of several scenarios, not the only scenario.
In TTOTL there is only one conclusive scenario after the application of selectively edited circumstantial evidence, despite many pointers to the contrary.
Pegasus asked if there were grounds under the FMF objectives to pay for the legal action against Amaral, and I have explained why I believe there are valid reasons.
Amaral chose to make himself a spokesperson for the original investigation by writing his book. The Portuguese Justice system did not distance itself from his opinions by prosecuting him for breach of secrecy, therefore we must assume they supported him.
The McCanns couldn't sue the whole of the Portuguese Justice system
for the failures of the original investigation, but they could take action against the very public actions of a citizen who has always said he knew far more than he has ever disclosed about Madeleine's disappearance.
The PPs said abduction was one of several scenarios, not the only scenario.
In TTOTL there is only one conclusive scenario after the application of selectively edited circumstantial evidence, despite many pointers to the contrary.
Pegasus asked if there were grounds under the FMF objectives to pay for the legal action against Amaral, and I have explained why I believe there are valid reasons.
Amaral chose to make himself a spokesperson for the original investigation by writing his book. The Portuguese Justice system did not distance itself from his opinions by prosecuting him for breach of secrecy, therefore we must assume they supported him.
The McCanns couldn't sue the whole of the Portuguese Justice system
for the failures of the original investigation, but they could take action against the very public actions of a citizen who has always said he knew far more than he has ever disclosed about Madeleine's disappearance.
The McCanns are extremely lucky not to have been pursued by the Portuguese State over their involvement and funding of fraudster PI's Metodo 3 and Correia but then the politics of that would have caused further damage to anglo relationships already severely strained.
The McCanns are extremely lucky not to have been pursued by the Portuguese State over their involvement and funding of fraudster PI's Metodo 3 and Correia but then the politics of that would have caused further damage to anglo relationships already severely strained.Where have you got that The Mccanns hired Marcos Aragao Correia from?
If I recall correctly, he actually said that he knew where Madeleine was.
Am I right in saying that to know that he has to know the abductor ?
Where have you got that The Mccanns hired Marcos Aragao Correia from?
Cite please. I am not interested in third party statements BTW. I want something directly proving what you say ...
Because I think you are wrong.
Where have you got that The Mccanns hired Marcos Aragao Correia from?
Cite please. I am not interested in third party statements BTW. I want something directly proving what you say ...
Because I think you are wrong.
Why are they wrong? What is your evidence?
Ridiculous, next someone demented will be claiming that someone with their UK and PT lawyer accidentally visited a national commitee member during the "Great Search Of Lisbon".
On what date was Isabel Duarte appointed?Not amongst the lawyers photographed during "The Great Search Of Lisbon" so probably afterwards IMO?
Not amongst the lawyers photographed during "The Great Search Of Lisbon" so probably afterwards IMO?
Kate first spoke to Isabel on the phone on 28th November 2008, after taking legal advice re GA's parade around Portugal & beyond. Gerry flew to Lisbon 6 weeks later to meet up with her.Sorry I was wrong. Checking, I find that Mr Amaral does say that Duarte was present during the Search of Lisbon mid-Jan 2009. I had wrongly thought from photos outside the hotel that only the Brit lawyer S and the PT lawyer A were present. So your addition makes 3 lawyers, not 2 as I wrongly stated. Mitchell confirmed that the kind donators to the FMF fund paid for this search.
Source:- madeleine page 335.
Do you believe stifling GA's political ambitions was on the agenda for that first meeting and also that Gerry had managed to schedule another meeting during the short visit with a top PSD official?
top PSD official
Someone in this thread hinted indirectly that the individual attacking Mr Amaral may have "2 million euros" available to pay to fight Mr Amaral's appeal.
This figure seemed outrageous, so I checked, and I found a reference to that exact figure, in an article which had used an ex-media-monitoring-unit employee as a source ....
"The Fund .... had two million euros at some point in time."
I was hypothetically asking if the PJGA fund had two million Euros in it, would the GBP be quite so happy to donate. I didn't mean the FMF.
Where have you got that The Mccanns hired Marcos Aragao Correia from?
Cite please. I am not interested in third party statements BTW. I want something directly proving what you say ...
Because I think you are wrong.
&%&£(+ &%&£(+ &%&£(+
We will never know what is in the coffers of the PJGA fund or where it has been directed ... for the simple reason it is not transparent as apparently it was promised to be ... with no accounts being published with one exception at start up.
It could be €200 or €200 million but a fund dependent on contributions from members of the public is amazingly reticent about allowing them to know anything about it. However if they are content to be cash cows that might have been a matter for them but for the hypocrisy of vituperative interest in the fund set up to enable the search for Madeleine McCann.
Is there any independent information about the progress of Mr Amaral's appeal ... I find the silence about it in the Portuguese press puzzling, if he really is the National hero we are told he is.
Please try to be a little helpful to the forum, Stephen. If you know Sadie is wrong, please provide the cite.
This has been gone over many times.
It is well known who Correia was employed by.
It's not well known to me.
Please provide a cite if you are so familiar with it.
Do you know how to use Google ?
If you don't I can guide you.
No need to give the news in the Portuguese press because when someone states that they are going to appeal that is enough. The press does not require the exact date when the appeal was filed.
Stephen - On this forum, if you make a statement of fact it is customary to provide a cite if asked.
Not tell fellow members to "google it."
I feel sure JP that you are well aware of who employed Correia.
Now let's start with the mccanns who employed Metardo3, who employed Correia.
This should help anyone who denies this.
https://www.google.co.uk/?gws_rd=ssl#q=WHO+EMPLOYED+CORREIA+IN+THE+MCCANN+CASE
&%+((£ ... and in what way does that provide a cite to confirm your claim?
We will never know what is in the coffers of the PJGA fund or where it has been directed ... for the simple reason it is not transparent as apparently it was promised to be ... with no accounts being published with one exception at start up.The GFM appeal website does clearly state that the money will be spent on legal expenses in this civil case.
It could be €200 or €200 million but a fund dependent on contributions from members of the public is amazingly reticent about allowing them to know anything about it. However if they are content to be cash cows that might have been a matter for them but for the hypocrisy of vituperative interest in the fund set up to enable the search for Madeleine McCann.
Is there any independent information about the progress of Mr Amaral's appeal ... I find the silence about it in the Portuguese press puzzling, if he really is the National hero we are told he is.
It doesn't.
On what date was Isabel Duarte appointed?
The GFM appeal website does clearly state that the money will be spent on legal expenses in this civil case.
The FMF appeal website ... I can't find the relevant page. Please FMF supporters can you post it here thanks.
The GFM appeal website does clearly state that the money will be spent on legal expenses in this civil case.
The FMF appeal website ... I can't find the relevant page. Please FMF supporters can you post it here thanks.
@jean-pierre
At least the GFM appeal and PJGA clearly state what their object is.
A level of clarity which another money-raising site would do well to aspire to.
It can state it's purpose until it's blue in the face. Until it clarifies the numbers it means absolutely nothing.
It can state it's purpose until it's blue in the face. Until it clarifies the numbers it means absolutely nothing.At least they do say upfront: we are paying legal expenses in this civil case.
Yes. Let's start with income. The GFM appeal continuously displays the exact total donated so far , and states the exact percentages which get deducted. This total is updated every time a donation is recieved. It is completely accurate, backed by the professionalism of a highly regarded international company.
Supposing they put some numbers up, would you believe them?
Yes. Let's start with income. The GFM appeal continuously displays the exact total donated so far , and states the exact percentages which get deducted. This total is updated every time a donation is recieved. It is completely accurate, backed by the professionalism of a highly regarded international company.
I challenge anyone to show me a website on the opposite side which clearly states total donations and deductions with this complete clarity.
Gofundme state what the deductions are.IMO PJGA is honest.
IMO PJGA is honest.
If you are implying otherwise, why not show PJGA how it should be done?
Let's have a look at some accounts of a professionally run fund.
IMO PJGA is honest.
If you are implying otherwise, why not show PJGA how it should be done?
Let's have a look at some accounts of a professionally run fund.
If we knew who ran PJGA, it would be a start.......If we knew who the "Fund Administrator" of FMF is it would be a start....
Good luck with that. As a limited company they comply with legal requirements and that's it. There are no legal requirements relating to the PJGA fund or to the gofundme fund. People have donated to all these funds in good faith and if they are happy why should others ask questions?
Are you two for real ?
Or are you in denial of the truth, like so many other mccann supporters ?
http://miscarriageofjustice.co/index.php?topic=4719.0
So you are saying Marcos Correia went after Amaral before he even became Leonors lawyer.
He rang the PJ, they were not interested, so he rang the Detective agency.
You need to research Correia.
By the way, where is he now ?
Meanwhile do you support his belief about Madeleine's fate.
I also heard he claims to be a psychic. 8((()*/
I don't need to. Marcos was not Leonors lawyer till August 2008.
He's at home!
So do you share his beliefs about Madeleine's fate ?
As you say he is at home, do you know him personally ?
Or does he communicate with you on the psychic plane ?
I don't need to. Marcos was not Leonors lawyer till August 2008. Metodo's contract ended March 2008.I am interested what date in March did the contract end?
He's at home!
I don't need to. Marcos was not Leonors lawyer till August 2008. Metodo's contract ended March 2008.Why dont you get your facts right stephen, rather than put out a stack of disinformation?
He's at home!
Why dont you get your facts right stephen, rather than put out a stack of disinformation?
I question because many of the donations are based on lies told by amaral...particularly what the dog's alerts prove
Amaral has presented his theory of Madeleine's fate, but he can't prove it. The McCanns have presented their theory and they can't prove it either. It doesn't stop either of them from claiming they're right.
Amaral hasn't asked for donations, others have. The McCann's invite donations on their website and present their theory on there as a fact.
Looks like pots and kettles to me.
Amaral has presented his theory of Madeleine's fate, but he can't prove it. The McCanns have presented their theory and they can't prove it either. It doesn't stop either of them from claiming they're right.
Amaral hasn't asked for donations, others have. The McCann's invite donations on their website and present their theory on there as a fact.
Looks like pots and kettles to me.
Amaral has presented his theory of Madeleine's fate, but he can't prove it. The McCanns have presented their theory and they can't prove it either. It doesn't stop either of them from claiming they're right.
Amaral hasn't asked for donations, others have. The McCann's invite donations on their website and present their theory on there as a fact.
Looks like pots and kettles to me.
Amaral has presented his theory of Madeleine's fate, but he can't prove it. The McCanns have presented their theory and they can't prove it either. It doesn't stop either of them from claiming they're right.
Amaral hasn't asked for donations, others have. The McCann's invite donations on their website and present their theory on there as a fact.
Looks like pots and kettles to me.
Amaral has presented a theory with no factual basis which accuses the McCanns of serious crime. The McCanns can certainly prove that the Madeleine fund is in apple-pie order, while Amaral accuses that the fund is fraudulent.
Amaral asserts that the Smiths saw Gerry whisking Madeleine past their noses. Certainly Mr Smith's children never believed that and it's extremely doubtful whether Mr Smith himself (now) believes it either.
Certainly Joao Carlos (who wrote the final PJ report) says that at the time of the Smith sighting, Gerry was in the restaurant.
There is more of a basis for Amaral's theory than there is for the McCann's. The McCanns may be able to prove that their fund is in apple-pie order but they haven't. Mr Smith was 60-80% certain that he saw Gerald McCann. They did say that Gerald McCann was in the restaurant, because they believed that the alarm was raised at 10pm. The witness statements cast doubt upon the exact time, so unless the PJ have evidence other than the witness statements they could have been mistaken.
"38. No Director shall be regarded as having a conflict of interest solely because he or she is also eligible to receive the support of the Foundation."
Is this a standard clause for all not-for-profit limited companies, or a clause added only by FMF?
"38. No Director shall be regarded as having a conflict of interest solely because he or she is also eligible to receive the support of the Foundation."
Is this a standard clause for all not-for-profit limited companies, or a clause added only by FMF?
Sadie claims to have talked with Correia and he denied everything of course. @)(++(*
Lawyer John Grade knows what they were up to though!
The McCanns were not in Portugal when they hired Metado3, therefore it was none of the Portuguese State's business.
Thanks for that information.
Another clause:
"2D.1 The income and property of the Foundation shall be applied solely towards the promotion of its objects"
IMO the word "solely" is important.
The objects are:
"2B.1.1 To secure the safe return to her family of Madeleine McCann who was abducted in Praia da Luz, Portugal on Thursday 3rd May 2007; and
2B.1.2 To procure that Madeleine's abduction is thoroughly investigated and that her abductors, as well as those who played or play any part in assisting them, are identified and brought to Justice."
IMO the legal costs of this prolonged private civil court case are not directly covered by either of those two objects.
Are civil case legal expenses to sue Mr Amaral "shoehorned" into clause 2B.1.2?
Or is some other fund paying?
I am sure it is all above board, but the Good Governance Code asks for clear communications.
Not sure why you are bothering Pegasus.IMO that side is not very powerful or skilled. Yes they have lots of money and top lawyers, but they make mistakes IMO, just one example being IMO their rather unfortunate timing of taking Leics Police to the High Court (if they'd waited a few weeks they would have won). A single mum could run rings around them.
Its all "legal and explainable"
That's why expensive lawyers are employed.
Not far different to govt spin either.
IMO that side is not very powerful or skilled. Yes they have lots of money and top lawyers, but they make mistakes IMO, just one example being IMO their rather unfortunate timing of taking Leics Police to the High Court (if they'd waited a few weeks they would have won). A single mum could run rings around them.
IMO clause 2B.1.2 could cover the civil legal expenses, certainly at the time action commenced - but I'm not a lawyer so it's not a definite.Yes you could shoehorn almost any expenditure into clause 2B.1.2. by saying oh but it indirectly in the long run might end up helping increase searches.
Kennedy bankrolled some of the early private investigative work, so perhaps he is the man behind any separate legal defence fund. As long as the British taxpayers aren't footing the bill, it's not really that important.
I'm sure she could, if she was operating outside their jurisdiction.I meant a single mum beats all the expensive clever lawyers and accountants on the other side.
Yes you could shoehorn almost any expenditure into clause 2B.1.2. by saying oh but it indirectly in the long run might end up helping increase searches.
The fact is that initiating libel cases is not directly and solely searching.
What we (and the Good Governance Code) demand is clarity and straight-talking.
Not clever interpretations of wording by expensive lawyers.
I meant a single mum beats all the expensive clever lawyers and accountants on the other side.
Because she manages to state clearly (so that Joe Public can understand) what the money will be solely used for.
First of all - she didn't write the script. There isn't even a definition of "legal expenses".Yes she says exactly what the GFM appeal is for.
Secondly - the GBP have no clue as to what net amount is being paid into GA's legal defence fund.
Thirdly - you should study Stripe account set-up very carefully.
Finally - I really don't care if people are throwing their money down the drain. What I do care about is that they believe in doing so, they are somehow achieving justice for Madeleine. That is just plain wrong.
First of all - she didn't write the script. There isn't even a definition of "legal expenses".
Secondly - the GBP have no clue as to what net amount is being paid into GA's legal defence fund.
Thirdly - you should study Stripe account set-up very carefully.
Finally - I really don't care if people are throwing their money down the drain. What I do care about is that they believe in doing so, they are somehow achieving justice for Madeleine. That is just plain wrong.
All companies have to identify areas where there may be conflicts of interest. Below is the best explanation I can find and I would guess that the wording in the clause pertained mainly to the interests of Smethurst, Corner & Kennedy.
http://www.blueavocado.org/node/545
"Conflict of interest" or "benefit from interest"?
In practice, what makes something a conflict of interest can also end up being a benefit from interest, or a good arrangement for the nonprofit. For instance, the board member who owns a building may reduce the rent for the nonprofit. Or the nonprofit may benefit from working with the law firm of a board member, because that board member will ensure that the firm will do excellent work and will charge fairly or even at a discount.
Community organizations are based in their constituencies, and hold themselves accountable to their constituencies. Accordingly, we believe it's important to have parents on preschool boards, social service clients on the boards of providers, and artists on the boards of arts councils. But consider the potential conflicts that can arise: In a nonprofit preschool where many of the board members are also parents, these individuals might feel pulled in two directions about whether the preschool should raise tuition in order to replace the roof. And what about the board member/client who utilizes a service of the agency that isn't used by many other people, and as a result, has a personal stake in the service that the staff is recommending be discontinued?
Such situations are not infrequent in nonprofits. They are important reminders for nonprofit boards to recognize the twin aspects of benefit and detriment that can result from a potential conflict-of-interest situation.
No Director shall be regarded as having a conflict of interest solely because he or she is also eligible to receive the support of the Foundation."
As I understand it, that clause refers only to those eligible to receive support from the fund. Those eligible are the family of Madeleine Mccann. Unless there is another conflict of interest he clause allows family members to vote despite the fact that they may be voting on whether or not the fund should offer support to a family member (including financial support, and including themselves). As Corner, Linnet and Smethurst are not family members the clause doesn't refer to them.
Yes she says exactly what the GFM appeal is for.
Yes PJGA do define legal expenses.
Yes the GFM site, and PJGA, both state how much they have recieved.
Yes the payment processing costs at GFM, and at PJGA, are clearly described.
The GFM and PJGA appeals both score 4 out of 4. How does your fund score?
Jon Corner did Media work for the Foundation. That is a conflict of interest.
Not covered by that particular clause though. Maybe he did it as a friend also.
1. FMF is nothing to do with me.Did you mean 5/5 for FMF? It's difficult to see how you could claim that when you are unable to post a screenshot where they actually mention in plain English whether they are paying for this civil case or not?
2. The fund is registered in the UK at Companies House and is both accounted & audited.
So, 5/5 for GFM.
How much was in the PJGA account @ 30/4/2015? Or 30/4/2014?
I disagree. It is a conflict of interest if he was paid by the fund for the promotional video work he did for the Foundation & IMO falls within the clause.
He isn't a member of Madeleine McCanns family. The only people supported by the fund are her family. How can he be covered by that clause?
Still looking for a straight answer - who pays the lawyers opposing Mr Amaral's appeal ?
You first! Show us that GA's Legal Defence Fund is more transparent than the FMF.This thread is about an appeal in a civil court case.
This thread is about an appeal in a civil court case.
Only funds that pay for legal costs in this civil case are relevant here.
How did you find out FMF pays for this civil case? It doesn't say so anywhere on their website.
If you insist they do pay, then we can compare the initial cost of their website, with the total gross proceeds of the GFM appeal so far.
Not a level playing field, Pegasus.
We know what's gone in & out of the FMF since its inception, through Companies House records. We also know who the Directors have been.
Lay the matching cards, then we can compare.
Only in the most general of terms - no details regarding expenditure breakdown.
I'll accept annual "general terms of income/expenditure breakdown" + list of PJGA directors/administrators.
Why are you so worried about such a small amount of money raised for a single clear purpose. Where do you suppose the money is going? I've asked you his before. Clear purpose versus fluid one, some thousands versus millions. Get some perspective.
£100 or £100,000, there should be transparency.
Dont you agree mercury
Yes, but some have got it all topsy turvey, haven't they? There is not a lot of transparency in the Madeleine Fund. there isn't much to be transparent about in the Mr Amaral fund.I am no accountant.
I am no accountant.
However I understand that the Find Madeleine Fund is Officially audited at the correct times.
I cant see much wrong with that.
that means diddly squat Sadie.
I am no accountant.
However I understand that the Find Madeleine Fund is Officially audited at the correct times.
I cant see much wrong with that.
Have you ever witnessed an auditor at work, Mercury? It is during those more thorough examinations of company accounts that fraudsters often get found out.
IF they are looking and even if they are the legalese will confound them....now we don't have these "problems" with Amaral's fund
In that case, there should be no problems providing the relevant data - should there?
Why do you want it? it's 32k pounds, why do you just BELIEVE the Mccanns millions have all been spent correctly but don't believe a fund that hasn't actually spent a penny yet lol, you're funny
Why do you want it? it's 32k pounds, why do you just BELIEVE the Mccanns millions have all been spent correctly but don't believe a fund that hasn't actually spent a penny yet lol, you're funny
Don't forget the first class travel and 5* hotels.I doubt they have travelled first class unless sponsored by a benefactor. Possibly Business Class and that is the level that you would expect many people of their position to fly.
After all, only the best is good enough.
I doubt they have travelled first class unless sponsored by a benefactor. Possibly Business Class and that is the level that you would expect many people of their position to fly.
Five star hotels? Well why not?
If chosen carefully, out of town or out of season, 5 stars can be very little more than 3 and 4 stars
How do you know what it has or hasn't been spent?
Is there anything at all about whether or not Mr Amaral's appeal is going forward? One would have thought there would be something about it in the Portuguese press.
Since it is a fund for an appeal and lawyers expenses,no alarm bells ring as the appeal has only just happened
Brietta you are in serious danger of becoming a hypocrite...now you wouldn't want that would you
Any joy in proving Eddie was running around a kitchen eating a kebab? Yet!
If you are not prepared to accept Martin Grimes word for it ... entirely your concern.
If it amuses you to think I give a tinker's curse about your opinion of me ... think on.
To say you bring a certain je ne sais quoi to the forum ~ is indisputable ... and I have never really expected any change in the habits of years in that there would ever be any transparency (as promised) in the PJ GA Fund.
Just another example of double standards so nothing new there.
So what is the latest on the appeal then ... does the Portuguese press even care?
I doubt they have travelled first class unless sponsored by a benefactor. Possibly Business Class and that is the level that you would expect many people of their position to fly.A free private jet for 3 was provided by a kind man for the search of the Holy See.
Five star hotels? Well why not?
If chosen carefully, out of town or out of season, 5 stars can be very little more than 3 and 4 stars
Martin Grimes word for what? You're seriously growing closer to being labelled as an utter liar...99 % of your post is laughable btwMercury
As for your comments on my position in this forum, well, Brietta, you don't have monopoly, the upper hand or the moral high ground, not by a long shot, so get a grip luv, hey? Shouldnt you be using all your energies in "Finding Madeleine"?
Mercury
Do not abuse Brietta.
Brietta has complete integrity, she thinks deeply and clearly and writes very well. If you cannot follow her, that is your failing. Most other people have no problems.
I repeat. Brietta is beyond reproach ... do NOT abuse her.
Dear Sadie, please don't preach pontificate advise or dictate to me it is quite offensive at best, thanksDear mercury, please do not keep making up
FMFThankyou G-Unit. So FMF are paying the legal expenses for this civil court case.
Since the Fund began to 31 March 2013;
Income is close to £4 million and expenditure £3.5 million. £44,185 has been paid in audit fees and £25,681 for corporation tax. The company had a refund of corporation tax relating to 2012/2013 due to the loss for the year.
The Director's Report for 2012-2013 says;
'The Fund has covered expenses for witnesses giving evidence in a libel trial in Lisbon against Goncalo Amaral (former coordinator of the Portuguese investigator to find Madeleine). Mr Amaral published a book in 2008 and produced a documentary and DVD in 2009 which claimed Madeleine was dead and that her parents faked an abduction and concealed her body. This has caused vast damage to the search for Madeleine in Portugal (where it is most likely that information relating to Madeleine’s abduction and whereabouts will come from.) The Board felt that an attempt to halt this damage was vital in order to further the search for Madeleine hence taking this course of action.'
Chairman's Statement 2008;
provided finance for a team of investigators to lead a private search for Madeleine
• financed the translation of the full set of files released by the Portuguese police, enabling our team of investigators to follow up all potential leads
• paid for legal representation for Kate, Gerry, Sean and Amelie in Portugal, enabling them obtain an injunction banning Mr Amaral [sic] from repeating his fabricated claims about Madeleine's abduction
Sorry mercury I got the decimal place wrong, it should be about 3700 pounds, isn't it?
Thankyou G-Unit. So FMF are paying the legal expenses for this civil court case.
BTW did I see a figure of about 3.7 thousand pounds for a website?
(edited to correct decimal place)
37 000Do you have a source for that?
@)(++(*
Do you have a source for that?
If you are right that would be more than Leanne has raised in total.
So, totally transparent then. 8)--))@misty There were no costs involved in setting up the GFM appeal.
Let's have Amaral's posted now, so we can make comparisons.
@misty There were no costs involved in setting up the GFM appeal.
And IMO the costs of setting up and running the PJGA site are about 100 euros a year.
They are efficient with very low costs.
@mercury Sorry you are right its 37000 pounds not 3700
ETA Is that for just 11 months?
Without wishing to sound rude, I'm not interested in opinions, I'm interested in facts.The cost of setting up the GFM appeal was zero - that is not opinion.
Amaral has had "global support" for 5 years. Where has all the money gone?
I'd really like to know how much CdM contributed to his fund.
Without wishing to sound rude, I'm not interested in opinions, I'm interested in facts.
Amaral has had "global support" for 5 years. Where has all the money gone?
I'd really like to know how much CdM contributed to his fund.
The cost of setting up the GFM appeal was zero - that is not opinion.
The 37000 pounds website cost (up to March 2008) is not opinion.
Do you have a link for CdM contribution please?
Also do you know if there was any payment for the Chicago show?
The GFM was set up because the Friends of Amaral said he is skint. Is that the truth?You can read the reason PJGA was set up, on their website.
How much is in the BPI account now? Where are the accounts showing where all the contributions have gone (inflated costs or other)?
I have no links to any CdM contribution - but they did have more than a vested interest in this case.
I also have no details of any payments made by the FMF.
You can read the reason PJGA was set up, on their website.
The PJGA (and Leanne's appeal) have no inflated costs. They've never used PR companies.They've never sent a PR person on trips to Rome and Chicago and Berlin and Amsterdam and Washington. They've never paid 37K for website expenses in less than a year. They have never meddled in foreign local politics. They've never taken Leicestershire Police to the High Court. They are shiny kettles.
'The find madeline fund has a primary aim of helping the McCanns to find their abducted child'
That is one view, it isn't the only one.
I do t think the mem and arts are required to take your views into account. Sorry.
I'm not bothered.
The point being that the fund may have been set up for another reason.
Madeleine's fund?? ... or Mr Amaral's fund??
Madeleines's fund accounts are audited and published ... Mr Amaral's fund accounts are not audited and published ... so which one are you questioning?
What funds does Amaral have exactly ?
That is the question &%+((£ do you have information on the PJGA accounts?
Nope.
It was actually a rhetorical question 8)-))) for something which promised transparency it remains remarkably opaque.
Quite frankly I don't see the problem in allowing a fund reliant on public subscription giving subscribers an indication of when and how their money is being spent, particularly since it was stated it was going to be open and transparent.
It was actually a rhetorical question 8)-))) for something which promised transparency it remains remarkably opaque.
Quite frankly I don't see the problem in allowing a fund reliant on public subscription giving subscribers an indication of when and how their money is being spent, particularly since it was stated it was going to be open and transparent.
It's unclear how much money will be needed for a defence that seems to consist of the contention that the McCanns should get less than the sum they have been awarded because they weren't with Madeleine when she was abducted .....The appeal is against the whole thing not just the amount.
It's unclear how much money will be needed for a defence that seems to consist of the contention that the McCanns should get less than the sum they have been awarded because they weren't with Madeleine when she was abducted .....
I predict the GoFundMe appeal will reach the magic £40,000 within two weeks.
Or overnight (if a person whose money was used to fund the legal and other attacks against Amaral decides it's time to level the playing field).
why do you think amaral has almost zero support in Portugal
How would you know how much support he has there ?
I predict the GoFundMe appeal will reach the magic £40,000 within two weeks.
Or overnight (if a person whose money was used to fund the legal and other attacks against Amaral decides it's time to level the playing field).
don't you read the Portuguese papers online
they need to keep pushing the "Justice for Maddie" angle then you could be right"PJGA was founded as a quest for justice" http://www.gofundme.com/Legal-DefencePJGA
"PJGA was founded as a quest for justice" http://www.gofundme.com/Legal-DefencePJGAWhy are the ordinary folk of Portugal not so convinced of Amaral's integrity and desperate need for financial assistance?
I think the billionaires whose £100000s finance this civil case against Mr Amaral, and the ordinary folk like window-cleaners, cheap record dealers and market traders sending their fivers to Leanne's appeal, all want justice.
One group is simply better at reading a man's integrity than the other.
Why are the ordinary folk of Portugal not so convinced of Amaral's integrity and desperate need for financial assistance?
Why are the ordinary folk of Portugal not so convinced of Amaral's integrity and desperate need for financial assistance?Because the GFM page has much better web visibility than the PJGA site.
"PJGA was founded as a quest for justice" http://www.gofundme.com/Legal-DefencePJGA
I think the billionaires whose £100000s finance this civil case against Mr Amaral, and the ordinary folk like window-cleaners, cheap record dealers and market traders sending their fivers to Leanne's appeal, all want justice.
One group is simply better at reading a man's integrity than the other.
Because the GFM page has much better web visibility than the PJGA site.Hey Leanne, if you're reading this, why not give it a go? I hear Amaral is a national hero in Portugal but the Portuguese haven't a clue about how to donate to their hero because they can't read what it says on your page! Also, it seems the Portuguese press know nothing of your endeavours either so why not set the PR wheels in motion and get Joana on the case (I'm somewhat surprised she hasn't already though tbh).
But the GFM page is currently has only english text.
Maybe if a short paragraph in portugese language is added on the GFM page,
and a little free PR (emails the link to a few portugese papers) ?
What do you think?
1. Do we have evidence they are not ? Not contributing to his fund is only evidence they are not contributing to it rather than the reason why they are not contributing to it.We've been informed that Amaral is very popular in Portugal. We also know the PT press reported his recent court failure against the McCanns and the unprecedented costs he has to pay. You'd have thought that there would be at least as many Portuguese nationals eager to fund their hero's fight back as there are gullible British fools currently parting with their hard earned on a repeat basis, no?
2. What's the Portuguese for "all coppers are 'nanas"? That could be the reason.
The two groups want different forms of justice, Pegasus.
Those who support the FMF want Madeleine found/any criminals brought to justice.
Those who support PJGA want a man's right to unrestricted freedom of speech restored in addition to his right to profit from it.
Either you don't understand or you're being disingenuous. The main reason is to support the underdog against the assault he has suffered. A lot of people think it is UNJUST that monies contributed to supposedly search for a child are being used to crucify someone in the sue courts. if you are ok with that, it's your problem.Yes that's it, he is the underdog, and attempts have been made to destroy him, so I support him.
Still, don't worry too much, he's only had a few thousand pounds, not millions....don't lose much sleep
Yes that's it, he is the underdog, and attempts have been made to destroy him, so I support him.
His theory is not all correct IMO. But he is a man of integrity, a man who talks straight.
he's a convicted criminal
Yes that's it, he is the underdog, and attempts have been made to destroy him, so I support him.
His theory is not all correct IMO. But he is a man of integrity, a man who talks straight.
We've been informed that Amaral is very popular in Portugal. We also know the PT press reported his recent court failure against the McCanns and the unprecedented costs he has to pay. You'd have thought that there would be at least as many Portuguese nationals eager to fund their hero's fight back as there are gullible British fools currently parting with their hard earned on a repeat basis, no?
Now tell us dave what did Metardo3 in connection with Correia, try to do on the mccanns behalf as regards Amaral ?
he's a convicted criminal
From the top.The source for the information regarding Amaral's popularity are members of this forum and elsewhere in internet land. Personally, I doubt their claims and they do seem unable to substantiate it. It is my opinion that if (as these poor deluded souls claim) Amaral is a bit of a national hero it is odd that we are not seeing any evidence of this being the case, such as numerous PT nationals digging deep into their own pockets on a regular basis to support their hero, such as we see in this country.
I haven't a clue whether or not he is popular in Portugal; what is the source of that information?
OK so the judges ruling was published in the Portuguese press; fair comment.
Why would one have thought Portuguese Jose Publico will contribute to Sr. Amaral's costs?
How do you know Jose Publico hasn't contributed in Portugal?
Why do you think Sr. Amaral is the hero of Jose Publico? what is the source of that information?
There are gullible fools everywhere.
As with other issues, this has been discussed before.
Or are you that blind ?
They wanted Amaral destroyed. 8(0(*
He was certainly not their favourite person once they got wind of his book and other spoutings and they eventually took steps via the civil courts to attempt to stop it. That's recorded fact.
Aside from that, what else is more than unsubstantiated insinuation?
The source for the information regarding Amaral's popularity are members of this forum and elsewhere in internet land. Personally, I doubt their claims and they do seem unable to substantiate it. It is my opinion that if (as these poor deluded souls claim) Amaral is a bit of a national hero it is odd that we are not seeing any evidence of this being the case, such as numerous PT nationals digging deep into their own pockets on a regular basis to support their hero, such as we see in this country.
I will draw my own conclusions from this absence of evidence of national support, as no doubt shall you - and both conclusions (whilst almost certainly poles apart) shall be equally valid 8((()*/
On whose instructions did Metardo3 go after Amaral, via Correia ?
Was it the tooth fairy ?
and of course Correia was 'helping' the Cipriano's.
Now pray tell, who was an investigating officer in that case ?
On whose instructions did Metardo3 go after Amaral, via Correia ?
Was it the tooth fairy ?
and of course Correia was 'helping' the Cipriano's.
Now pray tell, who was an investigating officer in that case ?
So what do you think of Correia's theory as to the fate of Madeleine ?
He also claims to be a psychic.
Do you believe he is ?
He got involved ion the Cipriano case on the back of this one.
A to B to C.
Contrary to what some would have us believe, M3's contract was not terminated in March 2008. It was extended.
I stand to be corrected of course but I see no evidence one way or another whether Portuguese nationals are contributing to Sr Amaral's beer 'n' baccy fund. There would appear to be no evidence to suggest that Jose Publico is contributing under his own name to the fund started by Leanne Baulch but that is a different proposition.Do you feel it is incumbent upon yourself to challenge every point I make, no matter how trivial, frivolous or how little you care what the actual answer is?
My conclusion would be I can't readily see any evidence to support or undermine the proposition. I do rather suspect most of us don't care how he is being funded. It's a bit like golf: how doesn't matter; how many does.
Dear oh dear.
When was it proved she was abducted ferryman ?
I would say, at roughly the point that Santos made his plea that proceedings be in camera to protect Madeleine lest Madeleine be alive.The civil court case has nothing to do with solving the crime, the judge has made that clear.
The civil court case has nothing to do with solving the crime, the judge has made that clear.
The "in camera" ploy highlights the question:
.. Who makes the decision on behalf of an underage ward of court, whether to sue someone in a civil court?
I haven't found anything to support the notion that Metodo3 had anything to do with Correia's decision to defend Leonor Cipriano at her torture trial.
Why would they? SOME lawyer would have had to have defended her in any case. It may as well have been any Jose Avogado.
I haven't found anything to support the notion that Metodo3 had anything to do with Correia's decision to defend Leonor Cipriano at her torture trial.
Why would they? SOME lawyer would have had to have defended her in any case. It may as well have been any Jose Avogado.
You conveniently missed out the bit where Metodo 3 previously tried to get lawyer John Grade to do their dirty work but he refused and went public. Correia obviously needed the money more and his links with M3 had already been established.What crime do you think has been committed and by whom?
It really doesn't matter which way you try to spin it Carana, anyone who knows anything about this case knows that Kennedy and the Madeleine Fund were paying Metodo 3. They in turn were funding Correia and everything he got up to. Only a public inquiry will get to the bottom of these murky dealings.
You are correct in the first paragraph.You may be correct that the "in camera" ploy was not the best tactic.
As for the second - the child's parents. Wardshop does not override parental rights. As amaral discovered to his (misadvised) cost.
You may be correct that the "in camera" ploy was not the best tactic.
But have the higher paid lawyers on the other side been perfect?
For example the timing of taking Leic Police to court. If the lawyers had delayed by a few weeks isn't it probable they would have won against the Police? (simply by delaying a few weeks until the case was shelved in Portugal).
What crime do you think has been committed and by whom?
I would say it was an attempt to pervert the course of justice at the very least and could very well include bribery of a public official. There will be other criminal violations if one digs deep enough and could include conspiracy.
So what do you actually have now...nothing
I would say it was an attempt to pervert the course of justice at the very least and could very well include bribery of a public official. There will be other criminal violations if one digs deep enough and could include conspiracy.How do you intend to do that?
I intend to find out who knew what and more importantly, who was giving Metodo 3 their orders and authorising payments to Correia.
There is more than enough at the moment to bring criminal conspiracy charges against certain individuals and organisations. Watch this space Dave.Would you care to elucidate?
Would you care to elucidate?
There is more than enough at the moment to bring criminal conspiracy charges against certain individuals and organisations. Watch this space Dave.
Nope@)(++(*
sorry but you are posting rubbish...criminal conspiracy charges against who?...has it not occurred to you that if there was ANY truth in what you say amaral would have done itDon't worry, Inspector Angelo's on the case.
sorry but you are posting rubbish...criminal conspiracy charges against who?...has it not occurred to you that if there was ANY truth in what you say amaral would have done it
sorry but you are posting rubbish...criminal conspiracy charges against who?...has it not occurred to you that if there was ANY truth in what you say amaral would have done it
£32,867 and no sign of slowing down (despite being blanked by the cowardly press).I think it's fair to say that the fund IS showing signs of slowing down, but if you want to speed things up why not devote some time and effort to bombarding the UK and Portuguese press with press release about it? The're sure to bite eventually... 8(0(*
Soon the gofundme should reach £33,333.
That's a third of the way to raising £100,000
Wouldn't it be great if the ordinary British public, fighting for integrity, could raise £100,001 and beat the £100,000 what just one of the multi-millionaires reportedly offered the other side for legal expenses.
That would be better than any balloon race / rugby match, if the GBP with their fivers and tenners can stick their fingers up at and beat the multi-millionaires.
Amaral was prevented from doing it or hadn't you noticed?Cite....because he didn't have any evidence no doubt
Brits take Maddie cop appeal fund to almost €46,000
(http://i.imgur.com/Cc5v4Ht.jpg?1)
June 26, 2015
(http://portugalresident.com/sites/default/files/styles/node-detail/public/field/image/2013-01-18-rtr2a1lr.jpg?itok=tclCtOTH)
In an amazing outpouring of support, British people donating to an online appeal have raised almost €46,000 to help former Portuguese detective Gonçalo Amaral stand his corner against the parents of Madeleine McCann.
As newspapers have reported throughout the world, Amaral has been slapped with a €600,000 bill for the pain and anguish his book ‘The Truth of the Lie’ caused Madeleine’s parents, Kate and Gerry.
In a poignant interview with Portuguese magazine Nova Gente, Amaral explained how the only thing keeping him alive since the verdict that went against him was his heart.
“My life is gone,” he said.
But he hadn’t bargained on the sheer volume of support, waiting to be rallied to his cause by a 22-year-old single mum from Birmingham, who was only 14 when Madeleine went missing from apartment 5a in the Ocean Club, in Praia da Luz.
In six whirlwind weeks, almost 2,000 people have dug into their pockets, some again and again with tiny amounts, others occasionally with lump sums of £1000 at a time.
As we clocked off for the weekend, the fund was one person short of 2,000, with the amount collected standing at £32,675.
Leanne Baulch, the young woman behind the initiative, was “amazed”.
“I never imagined we would get this far,” she told us.
The money now will all be ploughed into Amaral fighting his appeal, lodged earlier this month, and likely to cost “at least £40,000”, explained Ms Baulch.
The long-running civil court case was lodged against Amaral by the McCanns in 2009 after he wrote his book explaining the theory that Madeleine had not been abducted at all.
natasha.donn@algarveresident.com
http://portugalresident.com/brits-take-maddie-cop-appeal-fund-to-almost-%E2%82%AC46000
And not a mention of the T word !
And not a mention of the T word !
just to add that this paper is very biased against the McCanns so that explains it's gushing tone
Makes a change from UK newspapers gushing about the McCanns I suppose.
it doesn't quite have the readership of the UK paper's
So? At least it's free to report the case how it likes. The UK papers, allegedly, are too scared of being sued.to scared of being sued....you mean they are not able to print lies where as Portuguese papers are
makes you wonder why he does not have similar support in Portugal...probably because the Portuguese people know that he is a convicted criminal with an unpleasant history. the fund is dishonest in as much as it is being promoted as justice for Maddie....having said that the case has and will be decided according to the law
to scared of being sued....you mean they are not able to print lies where as Portuguese papers are
just to add that this paper is very biased against the McCanns so that explains it's gushing tone
So? At least it's free to report the case how it likes. The UK papers, allegedly, are too scared of being sued.
He has one conviction for altering official police records Dave, not exactly up there with career criminals is it?
You're so trusting. You believe everything and doubt nothing. Our police are wonderful, the Portuguese police aren't. Our newspapers are truthful, Portuguese newspapers aren't. People who have behaved extremely defensively and suspiciously and who were suspected of a crime are obviously innocent because they said so. 'Professional' translators are better than amateurs. The Portguese Judiciary is bad when it overturns a ban on a book, but good when it finds against Amaral. @)(++(* @)(++(*
wasn't he sued by his brother for fraud.......accused of drink driving by his wife...didn't he threaten to kill someone....an ex
Now you're just scraping the barrel. Amaral's work in fighting organised crime was a credit to him and that is why he rose to the rank of police coordinator so quickly.
QuoteThey won't correct it as it's obviously a pro-Amaral propaganda rag, and the only newspaper in the world that seems remotely interested in the Gonc Fund.
In six whirlwind weeks, almost 2,000 people have dug into their pockets, some again and again with tiny amounts, others occasionally with lump sums of £1000 at a time.
Unquote
I haven't looked at the site for while. Are they still promoting the incorrect total of how many people have contributed by classing each donation as being from a different person - when in fact many of the donations are multiple donations being repeatedly made by the same people.
If they haven't corrected that error then ''almost 2,000 people' should read 'almost 2,000 donations' to be true. The correct number of people who have contributed is obviously far less.
IMO It could be because - in the scheme of things - the number of people who have contributed is so tiny that the Press haven't taken it up.
Maybe they will at some point - who knows.
Only a nit-picker would bothered about such distinctions. The amount of money raised is what is important.Yeah, 1000 people, 2000 people what does it matter anyway, it's still a miniscule amount of support in the grand scheme of things, especially when you consider that Amaral is supposedly a national hero in Portugal.
Only a nit-picker would bothered about such distinctions. The amount of money raised is what is important.
I am bemused that an appeal merely challenging the size of the award was allowed at all.
To be clear, that's all (what!) Amaral's challenge consists of ....
So you think that pointing out that a fund which claims to be squeaky clean - is in reality deceiving the public into thinking far more people are supporting it than actually are - and then allows this false information to be spread via the press - is nitpicking? Really?
IMO It's obvious that that this disinformation is being allowed to stand because they want the public to believe there are far more supporters than the real total would reveal. That should tell you something.
And if that's not dishonest I don't know what is.
I am bemused that an appeal merely challenging the size of the award was allowed at all.
To be clear, that's all (what!) Amaral's challenge consists of ....
How do you know anything? Did you read his appeal?
How do you know anything? Did you read his appeal?
Will there be a clear account of how the donators money is being used for this appeal?
Considering they insist on the McCann's being super clear....... &%+((£
Will there be a clear account of how the donators money is being used for this appeal?
Considering they insist on the McCann's being super clear....... &%+((£
£33230. Today expect another £103 and the magic figure of £33333 will be reached. A third of the way to £100000, it blows a huge raspberry in the general direction of the multi-millionaires who pay the other sides legals.
And this has been achieved despite a blanket gag in the UK and PT mainstream press and tv..
And before any high-profile donor gets on board.
That's a heck of a lot of dosh to mount a defence that consists of little more than theMcCannsshouldhavegotlesscoztheyweren'twithMadeleinewhenshewasabducted ...
I'm sure, if I learnt a few key Portuguese phrases, I could present that defence for a minute fraction of the cost ...
Yeah, 1000 people, 2000 people what does it matter anyway, it's still a miniscule amount of support in the grand scheme of things, especially when you consider that Amaral is supposedly a national hero in Portugal.Yes £33,333 is a pathetically miniscule amount of support-
Do you know what Amaral's appeal actually says or are you merely guessing?
A logical inference based on known facts and details of earlier stages of proceedings.
There can be no denying that Santos expressly contradicted the last chapter of Amaral's book by saying what he did.
What price Amaral's appeal?
What on earth is this claim that there is a "blanket ban" in the UK press and tv? Perhaps you could elucidate?Certainly, here is a list of all mainstream UK and PT papers and TV stations that have reported the GFM appeal reaching its 25K target in this case which is definitely of great interest to the UK and PT public.
£33230. Today expect another £103 and the magic figure of £33333 will be reached. A third of the way to £100000, it blows a huge raspberry in the general direction of the multi-millionaires who pay the other sides legals.
And this has been achieved despite a blanket gag in the UK and PT mainstream press and tv..
And before any high-profile donor gets on board.
Certainly, here is a list of all mainstream UK and PT papers and TV stations that have reported the GFM appeal reaching its 25K target in this case which is definitely of great interest to the UK and PT public.
(list attached, apologies for the large file size)
Ah, back again. 8(0(*I don't normally respond to [moderated] ...but I must be mistaken in thinking that I have seen PROPER accounts from the FindMadeleine Fund posted and checked every financial year. &%+((£
You mean like the mccanns funds are not ?
A logical inference based on known facts and details of earlier stages of proceedings.
There can be no denying that Santos expressly contradicted the last chapter of Amaral's book by saying what he did.
What price Amaral's appeal?
I don't normally respond to idiots....but I must be mistaken in thinking that I have seen PROPER accounts from the FindMadeleine Fund posted and checked every financial year. &%+((£
The Find Madeleine Fund has complied with the minimum legal requirements with regard to their accounts. This doesn't allow any interested parties to discover how much has been spent on particular items, which is why they have been criticised for not being more transparent.
There is no legal requirement for the PJGA Fund to give any details about what has been donated or spent.
So you don't criticise PJGA for absence of transparency
But you do criticise Find Madeleine for not being more transparent than it is?
Why is that?
I don't normally respond to [moderated] ...but I must be mistaken in thinking that I have seen PROPER accounts from the FindMadeleine Fund posted and checked every financial year. &%+((£
What on earth is likely to cost that much in a Portuguese civil appeal case? He has some knowledge of the law, so does his daughter, and presumably any law student fan could look up legislation in his favour.As a fan I've already suggested something he might use. But a logical way to assess how much money he needs for lawyers, is to look at how much the other side are spending on their very expensive top Portuguese and UK lawyers, and try to equal that? You can't have a fair game of rugby if the pitch is sloping. You can't win a round the world balloon race with a self-inflated party balloon.
Why would this be newsworthy for the national press of either country?Large numbers of the public in both countries are interested in this case.
Certainly, here is a list of all mainstream UK and PT papers and TV stations that have reported the GFM appeal reaching its 25K target in this case which is definitely of great interest to the UK and PT public.
(list attached, apologies for the large file size)
You seem to think it is actually newsworthy, and the lack of fulsome articles is because of a blanket ban? Sory to burst your bubble, but I really think the lack of press coverage is because outside this tiny corne rof the internet, it simply isn't news worth mentioning or discussing.
As an objective test - Can you find links to (lets set the bar low) three websites or blogs not already dedicated to the McCanns case (so this forum, and Jill Haverns, and Morais do not count) that are protesting about the "gagging of the press" and the "blanket ban"?
Or have they all been "got at" too?
As a fan I've already suggested something he might use. But a logical way to assess how much money he needs for lawyers, is to look at how much the other side are spending on their very expensive top Portuguese and UK lawyers, and try to equal that? You can't have a fair game of rugby if the pitch is sloping. You can't win a round the world balloon race with a self-inflated party balloon.
This isn't a criminal case, Pegasus. If it had been, and expert witnesses had to be flown over, or attempts to reconstruct bullet or sound trajectories had been needed, I'd have agreed with you.On this civil case Mr Amaral's opponent has spent and continues to spend a huge amount of money on top lawyers. Therefore it is reasonable for Mr Amaral to hire a lawyer.
But it's not.
£33230. Today expect another £103 and the magic figure of £33333 will be reached. A third of the way to £100000, it blows a huge raspberry in the general direction of the multi-millionaires who pay the other sides legals.I'm sorry but the idea of a £33,333 GoFundMe blowing a huge raspberry in the direction of multi-millionaires is rather amusing to me. A bit like an ant stamping on an elephant's foot.
And this has been achieved despite a blanket gag in the UK and PT mainstream press and tv..
And before any high-profile donor gets on board.
I'm sorry but the idea of a £33,333 GoFundMe blowing a huge raspberry in the direction of multi-millionaires is rather amusing to me. A bit like an ant stamping on an elephant's foot.
I love that analogy ....
I love that analogy ....I prefer the "sloping rugby pitch" analogy.
I prefer the "sloping rugby pitch" analogy.
not that good because at half time they change endsPrecisely, and I have orange slices ready
He'll argue his rights as a free citizen.
He'll no doubt dispute that the infringement of his duty to maintain confidentiality once retired was of a lower nature than his right to freedom of speech.
Other media were discussing whether the McCanns were involved or not. Facilitated by the leaks during his tenure *cough*, but that would seem to be inadmissible in this civil trial.
The amount... well the amount does seem to be a little above what he actually earned during 2008-2009 according to the tax office, but it isn't clear when fees for TV broadcast right - initially suspended - were negotiated, and whether those fees were reimbursed pending the overturning of the injunction.
He could also argue the extent of the distress caused by his book / documentary and the quantifiable aspect of that.
Anything else?
I'm not 100% sure, but the law which the judge used for the 'presumption of innocence' argument seemed to refer to 'suspects' and to the judiciary. The McCanns and the UK media claimed they were no longer suspects following the archiving of the investigation. Could Amaral still be seen as part of the judicial process I wonder?
I'm not 100% sure, but the law which the judge used for the 'presumption of innocence' argument seemed to refer to 'suspects' and to the judiciary. The McCanns and the UK media claimed they were no longer suspects following the archiving of the investigation. Could Amaral still be seen as part of the judicial process I wonder?
The relevant text is here:
1.In the determination of his civil rights and obligations or of any criminal charge against him, everyone is entitled to a fair and public hearing within a reasonable time by an independent and impartial tribunal established by law. Judgment shall be pronounced publicly but the press and public may be excluded from all or part of the trial in the interest of morals, public order or national security in a democratic society, where the interests of juveniles or the protection of the private life of the parties so require, or the extent strictly necessary in the opinion of the court in special circumstances where publicity would prejudice the interests of justice.
2.Everyone charged with a criminal offence shall be presumed innocent until proved guilty according to law.
3.Everyone charged with a criminal offence has the following minimum rights:
(a) to be informed promptly, in a language which he understands and in detail, of the nature and cause of the accusation against him;(b) to have adequate time and the facilities for the preparation of his defence;(c) to defend himself in person or through legal assistance of his own choosing or, if he has not sufficient means to pay for legal assistance, to be given it free when the interests of justice so require;(d) to examine or have examined witnesses against him and to obtain the attendance and examination of witnesses on his behalf under the same conditions as witnesses against him;(e) to have the free assistance of an interpreter if he cannot understand or speak the language used in court.
Thank you, Jean-Pierre. Everyone charged then? How did she apply this in this case I wonder.
OK - for the hard of thinking I will have to translate.
Everyone charged with an offence is presumed innocent. So if the McCanns had reached the stage of being charged, then they would still be presumed innocent until found guilty by a court of law.
It follows that everyone else (i.e all those who have not be charged with any offence) are also presumed innocent.
Complicated, eh?
Yes! Why didn't she just say that.
Of course you do.You are misrepresenting me stephen.
How many people donated by the way to her recent charity cycling event, and how many to Amaral ?
Do you share Sadie's viewpoint that Amaral has got a lot of PR companies on his side ?
You are misrepresenting me stephen.It would be most unusual in a missing child case to hire PR companies IMO.
I have never said that Amaral has PR Companies on his side.
It would be most unusual in a missing child case to hire PR companies IMO.
Unless you had a reputation and a career to protect of course. Another issue which bothered me greatly was why the McCanns felt it expedient to have a secrecy clause in their contract with Halligen and Oakley International when they promised total transparency from the outset?
You are misrepresenting me stephen.
I have never said that Amaral has PR Companies on his side.
the answer is obvious and in no way sinister
What is obvious is that they say one thing but do the opposite which does them no favours whatsoever. If the Oakley Report is so innocuous then why not release it ?
What is obvious is that they say one thing but do the opposite which does them no favours whatsoever. If the Oakley Report is so innocuous then why not release it ?almost all people in the public eye have confidentiality clauses in their contracts to stop stories being sold to newspapers....The only people making demands on the McCanns are a few sceptics on the net....why should the McCanns do anything to satisfy them
Because it isn't innocuous but very damaging and that was what their own private investigators thought. hmm...
Unless you had a reputation and a career to protect of course. Another issue which bothered me greatly was why the McCanns felt it expedient to have a secrecy clause in their contract with Halligen and Oakley International when they promised total transparency from the outset?When did they promise total transparency into their private investigation into Madeleine's disappearance?
Well SY have it so they can make their own judgement and act on it...none of our business
When did they promise total transparency into their private investigation into Madeleine's disappearance?
Raises the question as to what other secrets they are hiding? As to credibility...what credibility??May one ask why you believe that every single detail of this case should be in the public domain at this moment in time?
When did they promise total transparency into their private investigation into Madeleine's disappearance?
Because it isn't innocuous but very damaging and that was what their own private investigators thought. hmm...
Now, didn't they promise a full an open investigation ?Cite. Who, when, where.
Cite. Who, when, where.
That's what I recall Alfred.
Question is, why wouldn't they do that ?
Unless you had a reputation and a career to protect of course. Another issue which bothered me greatly was why the McCanns felt it expedient to have a secrecy clause in their contract with Halligen and Oakley International when they promised total transparency from the outset?
When did they promise total transparency into their private investigation into Madeleine's disappearance?
Now, didn't they promise a full an open investigation ?
Now, didn't they promise a full an open investigation ?
She did. Excerpt from the translation below.
Also the bit highlighted is key in demonstrating that police officers (among other officials) will be held to higher standards, for obvious reasons.
______________
snip
"
In the European Court of Human Rights' jurisprudence, the principle of presumption of innocence imposes a standard of conduct for all agents, public servants and magistrates involved in the administration of criminal justice.
The presumption of innocence prohibits, according to these decisions, the premature expression of opinions or beliefs of guilt by the courts but also assumptions by public officers involved in procedures which might lead the public to suspect the responsibility of the suspects in the facts under investigation.
Accordingly in the Karaman vs Germany case, the decision claims that
The Court has previously held in this context that Art 6-2 aims at preventing undermining of a fair criminal trial by prejudicial statements made in close connection with proceedings. It not only prohibits the premature expression by the tribunal itself of the opinion the person «charged with a criminal offence» is guilty before he has been so proved according to the law, but also covers statements made by other public officials about pending criminal investigations which encourage the public to believe the suspect guilty and prejudge an assessment of the facts by the competent judicial authority [HUDOC ( 26 )].
[/i][/u]
Just as a matter of interest Jean-Pierre. Do you think the Gofundme Fund could be used as evidence of 'encouraging the public' - ?. Just curious.No - I don't think so. It is a pretty straightforward effort to raise money to pay for Amaral's appeal.
The Find Madeleine Fund has complied with the minimum legal requirements with regard to their accounts. This doesn't allow any interested parties to discover how much has been spent on particular items, which is why they have been criticised for not being more transparent.
There is no legal requirement for the PJGA Fund to give any details about what has been donated or spent.
No - I don't think so. It is a pretty straightforward effort to raise money to pay for Amaral's appeal.
I think the judge was having a pop at the UK and Portuguese press, and various forums where the view "Arguido = suspect" were promulgated.
No legal requirements - how convenient for them.
IIRC there have been no statements of how monies have been spent since the PJGA Fund began a few years back. As the amount was tiny I guess it wasn't a problem. However now with the latest GFM figures - surely there will be a moral obligation owed to those multi socked gullibles who donated - to be informed of just how exactly their benefits/ monies have been used to assist Amaral.
The minimum legal requirement for a small company is:
a ‘balance sheet’, which shows the value of everything the company owns and is owed on the last day of the financial year
a ‘profit and loss account’, which shows the company’s sales, running costs and the profit or loss it has made over the financial year
notes about the accounts
a director’s report
There is no requirement for an auditors report.
The Madeleine Fund is therefore exceeding the minimum standards, and their accounts are in line with the Charity Commission standards for Charities. If anyone has a specific and reasonable question concerning the accounts I am sure a letter to HaysMac will provide an answer.
G-Unit is correct that there is no legal obligation for PJGA to produce anything at all. Monies given are by nature gifts.
Ty JP ...GFM no legal obligation as you say - but bad manners not to though. All those folks who scraped together their pounds to send, at least deserve the courtesy of knowing (even roughly) how the money is being spent.
It does rather weaken their argument that the Find Madeleine fund is not transparent.
Ty JP ...GFM no legal obligation as you say - but bad manners not to though. All those folks who scraped together their pounds to send, at least deserve the courtesy of knowing (even roughly) how the money is being spent.
It would be most unusual in a missing child case to hire PR companies IMO.
Waste of money...I wonder how much they have spent?
I also wonder in how many issuing child cases the parents have used these kind of agencies, to what end and to what result
You raise an interesting point there. Do you happen to know how many other cases there are of missing children whose parents have been forced to pay detective agencies to do what the police should be doing?Metodo 3 were hired in early September 2007.
Madeleine McCann's case was archived which in effect means closed in 2008 ... the police were not looking for her ... obviously you think no-one should.
Metodo 3 were hired in early September 2007.
9 months before the case was archived.
The McCanns were made arguidos in early September 2007 and were thus aware that they were the focus of the investigation ... not Madeleine.After Sept 2007 PJ and LP were still investigating leads nothing to do with the parents.
So in fact the police were not looking for Madeleine McCann from nine months before the case was archived.
After Sept 2007 PJ and LP were still investigating leads nothing to do with the parents.
Correct, as witnessed in the files aplenty, anyone who says otherwise is lying or supporting an abysmal black propaganda for reasons unknown against the Portuguese police which started almost immediately post 3 May 2007...THIS FACT has not gone beyond many peoples noticeYes for example Rebelo and other PJ officers were actively investigating the abduction theory, testing ways to climb in the window, and ways to pass a child out the window, in October 2007. Metodo3 were hired a month before this.
You raise an interesting point there. Do you happen to know how many other cases there are of missing children whose parents have been forced to pay detective agencies to do what the police should be doing?
Madeleine McCann's case was archived which in effect means closed in 2008 ... the police were not looking for her ... obviously you think no-one should.
Yes for example Rebelo and other PJ officers were actively investigating the abduction theory, testing ways to climb in the window, and ways to pass a child out the window, in October 2007. Metodo3 were hired a month before this.
So where is the confirmation that Amaral will appeal to the higher court?
So where is the confirmation that Amaral will appeal to the higher court?
I'm interested in that too, Ferryman. Obviously there is no 'gagging' order on this considering the interviews given by Mr Amaral in the immediate aftermath of the judgement being handed down.
Obviously it might be inappropriate to have the nitty gritty published on MSM but surely it isn't too much to expect that Mr Amaral or a spokesperson could give a broad outline.
Or is it the conclusion that the media in Portugal is just plain disinterested?
Allow me to help;
This secrecy also includes civil cases. Although the parties involved in a litigation are named at the outset, once the papers are in the court obtaining further information can be frustrating for an investigator.We know that A is suing B for 5,000 euros. What we cannot find out is what it was for, and when it is likely to come to trial. - See more at: http://portugalresident.com/secrecy-of-justice-in-portugal#sthash.9FlxvaAt.dpuf
It begs the question - why Amaral's views on how the trial was progressing were solicited and freely given prior to the judgement being handed down...
Do you have links please?Just look up any Amaral interview for the last few years.
Just look up any Amaral interview for the last few years.
You ask for cites but you don't provide them yourself.I ask for cites when I know none actually exist. You ask for cites when you know they do - that's the difference. Do you not recall Amaral claiming in interview(s) to be quietly confident about winning the case prior to the judgment? It was not that long ago either. If you honestly, hand on heart do not, then I will spend some time looking for the cite, OK?
Quote from: stephen25000 on June 30, 2015, 08:53:10 AM
Now, didn't they promise a full an open investigation ?
Cite. Who, when, where. SAID ALFRED!!!!
I ask for cites when I know none actually exist. You ask for cites when you know they do - that's the difference. Do you not recall Amaral claiming in interview(s) to be quietly confident about winning the case prior to the judgment? It was not that long ago either. If you honestly, hand on heart do not, then I will spend some time looking for the cite, OK?
Here's but one example of sarky old Ammy chatting about the lawsuit in Portugal's "O Crime" magazine (looks a bit like Titbits for Portuguese fans of "crime") from 2012
http://www.mccannfiles.com/id408.html
At what stage is the civil proceeding the McCanns have against you?
We are at a pre-trial hearing stage. Presently, my new lawyer has been "tweaking" a process that was halted and that has stirred some panic in the opposing side.
One of the strongest arguments of the accusation alleges that Gonçalo Amaral became enriched with the book's author rights. What is your reaction to this claim?
If someone wants to talk about "enrichment", they should think firstly in the parents of the missing child, in their family, in their support "staff" and in their illustrious lawyer. In the latter case, it would be important for the aforementioned lawyer to state how much has she earned and what are her prospects regarding future gains, not to mention the other lawyers, the private detective agencies and PR companies.
Do you have any expectations as to the result of this lawsuit?
The only expectation that I have is that we are going to win the action, since there are no facts or material facts to support the claim. The action of the McCanns is inept. It is this that causes a great despondency in the illustrious lawyer, who felt the need to proceed with a campaign of disinformation and slander against me. She should not forget what she has been saying, because she will answer for that in court.
_______________________
In virtually every interview the "illustrious" ex-cop has given in the last few years he has mouthed off and whinged about the lawsuit against him. So much for having to keep schtumm for legal reasons.
Anyone know when Amaral plans to sue Duarte? Will there be enough in the Fund to cover this action as well? &%+((£
I shouldn't worry. They'll soon raise enough for that.Yep - as soon as the UK and PT press get their fingers out and put the Fund on the front pages he'll have enough to sue Duarte, The McCanns, Mitchell, me and you!
The only expectation that I have is that we are going to win the action, since there are no facts or material facts to support the claim. The action of the McCanns is inept. It is this that causes a great despondency in the illustrious lawyer, who felt the need to proceed with a campaign of disinformation and slander against me. She should not forget what she has been saying, because she will answer for that in court.
Not sure what (if anything!) Isabel Duarte might have said about Amaral outside court, but my guess is, not a lot.
Inside court, all statements are absolutely protected, in Portugal as in England.
Yep - as soon as the UK and PT press get their fingers out and put the Fund on the front pages he'll have enough to sue Duarte, The McCanns, Mitchell, me and you!
So where is the confirmation that Amaral will appeal to the higher court?
What do you think he did on the 15th of June?
I've a vague recollection of various announcements from unofficial sources ....
No ....
I've a vague recollection of various announcements from unofficial sources ....
8)--)) 8)--)) 8)--))
How vague will that be once the appeal starts. *&*%£
I've no doubt the perpetrators of the crime against Madeleine will be brought to justice before any appeal possibly reaches a higher court.
After 8 years of nothing.
Unless we see a 'Barry george' . &%+((£
Please don't let a little justice for Madeleine dissuade anyone from cancelling their standing orders to GFM. Freedom of speech is so much more important, even if it takes.....how many years?
It would be down right perverse if culprits (neither the McCanns nor any of their friends) were brought to book for Madeleine's disappearance, and yet Amaral was granted leave to appeal against the judgment of the lower court in the libel trial ....
After 8 years of nothing.
Unless we see a 'Barry george' . &%+((£
I'll contribute to that.Wanna see some impressive fundaising? Have a look at this!
Wanna see some impressive fundaising? Have a look at this!
https://www.indiegogo.com/greek-bailout-fund.html
Wonderful people action
@)(++(*
Just need a donation from Angela Merkel of a billion and it's sorted! her face is saved, the Greeks will be happy and all will be hunky dory. But not to worry, the Greeks will be fine as the arch evil doers in the EU are losing every day in so many ways more than one
So, any answers to why so many are chewing their carpets over donations to a legal fund? Thought not.
I don't think there is any carpet chewing going on. Just curiosity at the lack of information - even to subscribers.
and what about spending tax payers money on crimes that can be solved ?
and are not as this case appears to be, a bottomless pit, until the plug is pulled.
A casual observer might be led to believe you never want Madeleine McCann's case solved.
Objection!!! to the Madeleine Fund.
Objection!!! to 'taxpayers' money'.
Crimes will never be solved ...
if no-one investigates them to find out
(a) the nature of the crime and
(b) who dunnit.
How long with no results will the investigation be allowed to continue with no results.
Cue the cleaning upchewing gum analogy. 8)--))
You are ignorant of precisely what SY and the PJ are doing or precisely how far they have got in doing it. I will take notice when the professional investigators tell us they have taken Madeleine McCann's case as far as it can possibly be taken.
In the interim ... a truth seeker ... who strains every sinew in objection to the truth being sought ... evidences a really odd philosophy.
To the contrary, I want the truth of what happened.
So precisely how long should tax payers money be spent with NO RESULTS ?
1 YEAR ?
Or an unlimited time ?
Meanwhile other crimes get unsolved, due to diminishing resources.
Are you happy with that ?
Or is this case special above all others ?
This appears to be the mind set of mccann supporters. %£&)**# %£&)**# %£&)**#
The case seems very special to you Stephen. I haven't seen any objections from you about tax payers' cash now being allocated to Ben Needham's case - also AFAIK with no results thus far. Are you happy with that?
I'm not attached to the mccanns, metaphorically or otherwise, as some are.
It's about time money was spent on the Needhams case, though something tells me it's too late to achieve anything.
So to you as well, how long should this case continue with the mccanns with no results ?
Amaral himself wanted the case reopened. He was going to send in information about a "missing" pink blanket as new evidence.
He got his wish... PT has reopened it.
I'm not attached to the mccanns, metaphorically or otherwise, as some are.
It's about time money was spent on the Needhams case, though something tells me it's too late to achieve anything.
So to you as well, how long should this case continue with the mccanns with no results ?
Your claim that people are 'attached' to the McCanns is as silly as if I claimed your interest in this case is only because you are 'attached' to and worship Amaral. I'm sure you would think I was being very childish if I kept on making such an immature claim. And you would be right.
The Ben Needham case is over 20 years old. Ben was unsupervised when he disappeared. There is no evidence of an abduction. We only have the family's word for what happened. Therefore it's a mystery to me why you would have such a different opinion on one case as opposed to the other. Especially as Kerry Needham believes that Madeleine was abducted - surely you must have the same low opinion of her as you do of everyone who supports the case for abduction?
IMO it is precisely because of the UK investigation into Madeleine's disappearance that tax payers money has now been allocated to Ben's case. (£700,000?). If so then surely that is a good thing to have happened as a result of the present investigation?
I would be delighted if a full investigation into Ben Needhams disappearance was implemented, and just as in the McCann case - it wouldn't matter to me how much it cost or how long it took to come to a conclusion - whatever that conclusion proved to be.
I am also convinced that children who are abducted in the future will have a much better chance of be found as a result of the vast experience gained - and maybe even lessons learned - by our police force during the course of their investigations into the McCann case.
So worth every penny IMO.
Your claim that people are 'attached' to the McCanns is as silly as if I claimed your interest in this case is only because you are 'attached' to and worship Amaral. I'm sure you would think I was being very childish if I kept on making such an immature claim. And you would be right.
The Ben Needham case is over 20 years old. Ben was unsupervised when he disappeared. There is no evidence of an abduction. We only have the family's word for what happened. Therefore it's a mystery to me why you would have such a different opinion on one case as opposed to the other. Especially as Kerry Needham believes that Madeleine was abducted - surely you must have the same low opinion of her as you do of everyone who supports the case for abduction?
IMO it is precisely because of the UK investigation into Madeleine's disappearance that tax payers money has now been allocated to Ben's case. (£700,000?). If so then surely that is a good thing to have happened as a result of the present investigation?
I would be delighted if a full investigation into Ben Needhams disappearance was implemented, and just as in the McCann case - it wouldn't matter to me how much it cost or how long it took to come to a conclusion - whatever that conclusion proved to be.
I am also convinced that children who are abducted in the future will have a much better chance of be found as a result of the vast experience gained - and maybe even lessons learned - by our police force during the course of their investigations into the McCann case.
So worth every penny IMO.
The "missing" pink blanket.
The one Kate gave GNR dog-handlers so they could (at least attempt to) prime their dogs with Madeleine's scent ...
(snip)
I am also convinced that children who are abducted in the future will have a much better chance of be found as a result of the vast experience gained - and maybe even lessons learned - by our police force during the course of their investigations into the McCann case.
So worth every penny IMO.
Forget the chewing gum analogy, you should see how much it costs to police the notting Hill Carnival for 3 days each year - you'll explode with rage!
How long with no results will the investigation be allowed to continue with no results.
Cue the cleaning upchewing gum analogy. 8)--))
Forget the chewing gum analogy, you should see how much it costs to police the notting Hill Carnival for 3 days each year - you'll explode with rage!
I've seen the allegation of £34m per year for the Notting Hill Carnival on blogs, but where was that figure sourced?No idea - it's usually around the £6-8m mark I believe, though I watched a programme on the Met a few weeks ago and they quoted £11m if I recall correctly. Whatever it is, it's a lot!
I've seen the allegation of £34m per year for the Notting Hill Carnival on blogs, but where was that figure sourced?
No idea - it's usually around the £6-8m mark I believe, though I watched a programme on the Met a few weeks ago and they quoted £11m if I recall correctly. Whatever it is, it's a lot!
5.6 Million.
And that's every year.
http://www.theguardian.com/uk/2002/jun/01/nottinghillcarnival2001.nottinghillcarnival2002
But obviously that must take priority over a missing little girl ....
and other missing people ?Richard? &%+((£
Or is Madeley new on a pedestal for you?
Richard? &%+((£
The Nottinghill Carnival isn't the only one ...
So is there independent confirmation that Amaral has been granted leave to appeal?
So is there independent confirmation that Amaral has been granted leave to appeal?
So is there independent confirmation that Amaral has been granted leave to appeal?
So is there independent confirmation that Amaral has been granted leave to appeal?
2 weeks ago this was posted here.
http://pjga.blogspot.co.uk/2015/06/update-appeal-filed.html
the problem is you don't seem to understand...amaral has been granted leave to appeal....he now has to wait to see if the court accepts he has grounds to appeal
Don't worry your little head over that dave.
He will have his appeal. 8((()*/
the problem is you don't seem to understand...amaral has been granted leave to appeal....he now has to wait to see if the court accepts he has grounds to appeal
I don't give a toss either way
I don't give a toss either way
He has appealed. As to the perpetrators, the officials say they don't know what the crime is for a start, let alone have any serious suspects, You're whistling in the wind. Yup, the appeal will go ahead and moreover, the case has nothing whatsoever to do with any current investigation, nothing at all.
Yes you do. Your prediction was that he was "toast", that he deserves everything he gets, that you hope he is homeless and destitute and so forth. Your cruelty has been noted, especially as regards the apparent suicide of Brenda Leyland, that she deserved to be door stepped by a multinational media company , that her killing herself didn't bother you at all etc , she deserved all she got, and you have the gall to ask others if they are Nazis. So laughable and so very sad.
So far your prediction re Amaral has not been proven right, so that's why you do give a "toss"
Yes you do. Your prediction was that he was "toast", that he deserves everything he gets, that you hope he is homeless and destitute and so forth. Your cruelty has been noted, especially as regards the apparent suicide of Brenda Leyland, that she deserved to be door stepped by a multinational media company , that her killing herself didn't bother you at all etc , she deserved all she got, and you have the gall to ask others if they are Nazis. So laughable and so very sad.To be fair Davel predicted Amaral would lose the court case and he was right.
So far your prediction re Amaral has not been proven right, so that's why you do give a "toss"
Plain barking.
Amaral wrote a book saying theMcCannsdunit, covered up their crime and launched a fraudulent "fund" in their (dead) daughter's name.
The present investigation is not remotely considering the McCanns or any of their friends.
The prosecutors' report from the shelved enquiry makes plain that the McCanns are not guilty of any crime.
Where does Amaral turn?
To be fair Davel predicted Amaral would lose the court case and he was right.
and pray tell which parts of the case did the mccanns fail to prove ?Irrelevant to the point I was making re: Davel's accuracy in predicting the result of the trial.
MEANWHILE, we await the appeal.
Irrelevant to the point I was making re: Davel's accuracy in predicting the result of the trial.
They 'won' on one point, not the rest.
Now we await the appeal.
Meanwhile alfred, just remind me of how much Money they have received from Amaral. @)(++(*
They 'won' on one point, not the rest.The McCanns won the trial, I know it's hard for you to acknowledge or accept but it's a fact, one predicted by Davel.
Now we await the appeal.
Meanwhile alfred, just remind me of how much Money they have received from Amaral. @)(++(*
Yes you do. Your prediction was that he was "toast", that he deserves everything he gets, that you hope he is homeless and destitute and so forth. Your cruelty has been noted, especially as regards the apparent suicide of Brenda Leyland, that she deserved to be door stepped by a multinational media company , that her killing herself didn't bother you at all etc , she deserved all she got, and you have the gall to ask others if they are Nazis. So laughable and so very sad.
So far your prediction re Amaral has not been proven right, so that's why you do give a "toss"
The McCanns won the trial, I know it's hard for you to acknowledge or accept but it's a fact, one predicted by Davel.
Plain barking.
Amaral wrote a book saying theMcCannsdunit, covered up their crime and launched a fraudulent "fund" in their (dead) daughter's name.
The present investigation is not remotely considering the McCanns or any of their friends.
The prosecutors' report from the shelved enquiry makes plain that the McCanns are not guilty of any crime.
Where does Amaral turn?
The McCanns sued Amaral for damage to themselves, the twins and Madeleine. The award was made to the two of them. The other three family members got nothing. The search was not damaged. The truthfulness of the book wasn't considered, only insofar as most of the facts in the book were also in the files. They asked for 1.2 million euros and got 500,000. Win 40% lose 60%.
So by your logic amaral must be over the moon.....he isn't
Wrong as usual, the current trial has zilch to do with the current so called SY investigation
The direction of the present enquiry underlines and emphasises that the McCanns are innocent.
Amaral's book, documentary and interviews all say the opposite.
How can that be irrelevant?
The direction of the present enquiry underlines and emphasises that the McCanns are innocent.
Amaral's book, documentary and interviews all say the opposite.
How can that be irrelevant?
So by your logic amaral must be over the moon.....he isn't
How much money have the mccanns got from Amaral ?They won and were awarded unprecedented damages. I am well aware that Amaral is appealing the cout's decion, of course if the McCanns hadn't won he would have no need to appeal would he?
I can help with the answer. @)(++(*
They lost key elements of the trial, or have you conveniently forgotten that ?
They won and were awarded unprecedented damages. I am well aware that Amaral is appealing the cout's decion, of course if the McCanns hadn't won he would have no need to appeal would he?
They won and were awarded unprecedented damages. I am well aware that Amaral is appealing the cout's decion, of course if the McCanns hadn't won he would have no need to appeal would he?
he won his last appeal, the Mccanns lost,, probably will win this one too, then for Davelhe won't be "toast" lolif you say so dear.
They won and were awarded unprecedented damages. I am well aware that Amaral is appealing the cout's decion, of course if the McCanns hadn't won he would have no need to appeal would he?
How much money have the mccanns received directly as a result of this 'victory' ?And how much and for how long has amaral been denied access to his own money....
if you say so dear.
But "it wasn't about the money".
it's not my say so it's a fact that the Mccanns lost their "first round"The McCanns won against Amaral, that's a fact. Whether Amaral succeeds in overturning the court judgement remainsnto be seen, hold your crowing for a bit, you may end up looking even more foolish than usual.
you have no idea or knowledge to say they won't lose the other end
And how much and for how long has amaral been denied access to his own money....
The McCanns won against Amaral, that's a fact. Whether Amaral succeeds in overturning the court judgement remainsnto be seen, hold your crowing for a bit, you may end up looking even more foolish than usual.
there is no point in your backtracking, the ONLY salient point (s) here is that the Mccanns have a record of losing in "reality"It's impossible to have a ratioanl discussion with someone who sees everything in reverse. The McCanns won in court against Amaral, it was reported in the press in this country and Portugal, you may not believe or accept it, that's your problem not mine. Goodbye.
Ie twice
get with the programme
it is fair to say the McCann have NEVER won any action in any court, wonder why that is? Cos their actions were stupid I guess
It's impossible to have a ratioanl discussion with someone who sees everything in reverse. The McCanns won in court against Amaral, it was reported in the press in this country and Portugal, you may not believe or accept it, that's your problem not mine. Goodbye.
Not sure what your problem is here,no one is denying they won, but there isanappeal, so it's possible they will be in the position of "didn't win" in the end, sheesh lol
Not sure what your problem is here,no one is denying they won, but there isanappeal, so it's possible they will be in the position of "didn't win" in the end, sheesh lolAs soon as the judge decides whether the appeal is allowed to proceed, we will know immediately IMO.
As soon as the judge decides whether the appeal is allowed to proceed, we will know immediately IMO.If the judge says no to the appeal I doubt we'll hear anything at all, not directly from either party anyway.
If the judge says "yes". Mr Amaral will tell us.
If the judge says "no", both Mr Amaral and his opponent will tell us.
If the judge says no to the appeal I doubt we'll hear anything at all, not directly from either party anyway.
Don't be so sillyI'm not being silly. If the judge says no to the appeal it changes nothing as far as the McCanns are concerned, and is Amaral really going to want to publicly admit such a humiliating outcome? I doubt it.
If the judge says no to the appeal I doubt we'll hear anything at all, not directly from either party anyway.
Don't be so sillyPredicting outcomes in this case is not wise as we have repeatedly seen.
An d get over it Amaral will win his appeal even if some of your ilk don't even accept he has lodged one lolol mad of them or what
For me the jury is still out on whether Amaral has made an appeal ....
I think he may well have done as a matter of course; whether it is allowed or not may be more newsworthy and will eventually get some attention from the Portuguese press.
I am finding the silence from Mr Amaral or his friends deafening.
I think he may well have done as a matter of course; whether it is allowed or not may be more newsworthy and will eventually get some attention from the Portuguese press.
I am finding the silence from Mr Amaral or his friends deafening.
As soon as the judge decides whether the appeal is allowed to proceed, we will know immediately IMO.
If the judge says "yes". Mr Amaral will tell us.
If the judge says "no", both Mr Amaral and his opponent will tell us.
The judge in the civil court cannot stop the appeal from proceeding. If she does not accepts the argument in his appeal, she maintains her decision and then she sends his appeal to the Tribunal da Relação. The judge cannot bin the appeal and stop it from going to a higher court.
Thank you for clarifying this issue Montclair. Portuguese Law certainly continues to challenge most of us as this case proceeds to the next round.
so this could drag on for years....meanwhile the book is banned and amaral has no money...that'll do for now
Despicable isn't it what the Mccanns have done to him, nothing but a vengeful agenda, no morals, no point, no result, negative to the extreme of them
and the mccanns have not got any money from him, only ongoing legal bills.
That will do for now.
Na na na na naaa. They have said they would put the money into Madeleine's fund, so the money would go towards the search for Madeleine, not in their pockets. If the fund isn't needed the money will go to the Missing People charity.
Na na na na naaa. They have said they would put the money into Madeleine's fund, so the money would go towards the search for Madeleine, not in their pockets. If the fund isn't needed the money will go to the Missing People charity.
That's original.
Perhaps you should tell dave that. 8)--))
I am sure he has read what the McCann's have said.
and the mccanns have not got any money from him, only ongoing legal bills.
That will do for now.
https://madeleinemccannthetruth.files.wordpress.com/2011/08/24-horas-amaral-debts.pdf
Perhaps the McCanns are not the only ones standing in the queue waiting for debts to be paid. Mr Amaral seems to have quite a record for such ... and from long before the McCann family made their ill fated decision to set foot in Portugal.
I have
Seems Stephen hasnt
So, if someone wrote a book accusing you of drugging your child, disposing of her body and lying to the police you would be quite happy to let that book containing all of that circulate all around the world, really?Of course she would! Meanwhile if you dare to call a couple of policemen in Portugal "Tweedle Dee and Tweedledum" well that's simply beyond the pale!
Na na na na naaa. They have said they would put the money into Madeleine's fund, so the money would go towards the search for Madeleine, not in their pockets. If the fund isn't needed the money will go to the Missing People charity.
Ill fated decision ???
They are responsible for what they failed to do, not Amaral.
As to his other debts, they would have to be agreement among his creditors.
Is he bankrupt ?
Would you care to show us in the companies articles of association where that is stipulated ?
Would we be having this conversation if "friends of the McCanns" had opened a bank account and advertised ...
Therefore, his friends decided to open a private bank account, where funds would be kept to pay, whenever necessary and whenever possible, expenses that were presented by Mr Amaral’s lawyer. Projecto Justiça Gonçalo Amaral was born out of solidarity and friendship.
The trial is ongoing, since 2009, nothing has changed, pending final judgment. We continue to accept your donations only into this one bank account and we continue to meet only legal expenses out of that very same account.
If any funds are left unused, they will be donated to a Portuguese children’s charity, according to Gonçalo Amaral’s wishes.
No controversy ... no discussion ... and absolutely no transparency.
Would you care to show us in the companies articles of association where that is stipulated ?
They didn't do that so we are having this conversation. Or rather I was with another poster.
Why do you have difficulty in accepting that "The Fund" can only do what the company's articles of association allow it to do? Do you have this same problem with all limited companies or just the one ?
I don't know if it is stipulated in the companies articles of association Alice, maybe you could write to them and find out. I would imagine it would come into discussion if and when Madeleine is found.
So, if someone wrote a book accusing you of drugging your child, disposing of her body and lying to the police you would be quite happy to let that book containing all of that circulate all around the world, really?
Well according to the judge's decision, anyone else could have written the same book and there would have been no problem. She decided that Gonçalo Amaral was not allowed to do so because he was a retired policeman.
Well according to the judge's decision, anyone else could have written the same book and there would have been no problem. She decided that Gonçalo Amaral was not allowed to do so because he was a retired policeman.
Well according to the judge's decision, anyone else could have written the same book and there would have been no problem. She decided that Gonçalo Amaral was not allowed to do so because he was a retired policeman.
Or simply a different view on law
Well, arguments did appear to arrive at a stalemate until towards the end of the arguments.
What's not clear is whether other arguments / legislation may have been used had the case been different.
Perhaps, in general terms, it's perfectly ok for your neighbour to accuse you of stealing and microwaving your neighbours' babies for breakfast in Portugal. With the fear of potential vigilante action in the middle of the night for those who assumed that it was true.
You wouldn't mind, would you?
So, if someone wrote a book accusing you of drugging your child, disposing of her body and lying to the police you would be quite happy to let that book containing all of that circulate all around the world, really?
For Ferryman
http://portugalresident.com/maddie-cop-launches-appeal-against-mccann’s-record-damages-‘win’-of-€500000
independent enough for you?
&%54%
PS You will need to highlight the whole link and then paste in your browser. For some reason it is not c & p'ing in full here
Natasha Donn?
What?
You have been given three pieces of evidence now that an appeal has been lodged, about tme you apologised and accepted the fact that yes, it has been,then we can all move on
I repeat
Natasha Donn??? !
I want proper evidence Amaral has been granted leave to appeal.
To put flesh on my objection, Natasha Donn lends credence to the work of phoney criminal "profiler" Pat Brown:
http://www.jornal123.com/en/Articles/2-1520/American_Criminal_Profiler_probes_McCann_mystery
Perhaps a nice British newspaper can convince you;
Mr Amaral’s legal team have leave to appeal the award.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/newstopics/madeleinemccann/11568725/Madeleine-McCanns-parents-awarded-357k-in-Portuguese-libel-case.html
I am sure ferryman can now look forward to the next stage.
@)(++(*@)(++(*
Perhaps a nice British newspaper can convince you;
Mr Amaral’s legal team have leave to appeal the award.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/newstopics/madeleinemccann/11568725/Madeleine-McCanns-parents-awarded-357k-in-Portuguese-libel-case.html
The Daily Telegraph report, written hard on the heels of the McCanns' first-round victory, merely confirms that Amaral had the option of lodging an appeal.
It doesn't actually say that he had and, indeed, that close to conclusion of the first round he (then!) couldn't have.
Does that mean, pages later, you still don't accept that one has been filed?
Does it mean you think the court docket is a forgery, that both Amaral and the said Portugal Resident journalist are both lying? You could include the blogger Astro in that list as well if you like. I really cannot understand where you are coming from on this issue.
You know, I know, we all know the appeal has been filed. I don't intend to take part in this foolish discussion any more.
There is no appeal yet...amaral has filed an application citing his grounds. The court will then decide an appeal is allowed
Wrong.
There will be an appeal.
Try comprehending what you have read on here.
It has been explained.
If he has grounds...there will be an appeal
Read again.
I don't need to read anything..it's basic law
Does anyone know what happened when Amaral appealed against his criminal conviction re Leonor Cipriano?
Was that accepted by the Judge at the first attempt, or did he have to go to a higher court to get the appeal heard? Was it actually heard at all - or was it not allowed to be heard? All I know is that it failed - whether it failed to be heard or was heard and then thrown out - I don't know.
Anyone got any info on this? It might give us a clue as to how these things work in practise - although I realise that his previous failed appeal was in a Criminal court and so might not apply to this appeal.
Does anyone know what happened when Amaral appealed against his criminal conviction re Leonor Cipriano?
Was that accepted by the Judge at the first attempt, or did he have to go to a higher court to get the appeal heard? Was it actually heard at all - or was it not allowed to be heard? All I know is that it failed - whether it failed to be heard or was heard and then thrown out - I don't know.
Anyone got any info on this? It might give us a clue as to how these things work in practise - although I realise that his previous failed appeal was in a Criminal court and so might not apply to this appeal.
It seems that the appeal went through, but the court upheld the ruling.
18 March 2011
The Appellate Court of Évora did not approve the appeals of the two Judiciary Police officers who were convicted in Leonor Cipriano’s trial and decided to maintain the ruling made at the court of first instance...
https://madeleinemccannthetruth.wordpress.com/2011/10/31/evoras-court-upheld-the-pj-officers-convictions/
Joana Case: Court keeps sentences on former pj inspectors
The Évora Court refuted the existence of "unconstitutionality and nullity" in judgment which upheld the conviction of former inspectors of the Judicial Police (PJ) in the case of attacks on Leonor Cipriano, Joana's mother of child missing in the Algarve in 2004.
On 18 March this year, the Court of Appeal upheld the conviction of former PJ inspector Gonçalo Amaral and António Nunes Cardoso, with suspended sentences, the Court of Faro in 2009, but the latter former agent requested "clarification and reform of judgment. "
According to judicial sources, the Évora Court understood that "lacks reason," the application of António Nunes Cardoso, sentenced to two years and three months imprisonment with suspended sentence for the crime of document forgery. Understand yet the appellate court that the appeal of Évora "surpasses fully the scope allowed to a request for clarification or adduction of errors, oversights, or obscurities nonentities."
In the decision of the resources of the former inspectors, reported on 18 March 2011, the Court / Relation also maintained the sentence of one year and six months in prison for the crime of making false allegations, suspended on probation, applied to Gonçalo Amaral, former coordinator of the Criminal Investigation Department in Portimão.
http://www.dn.pt/inicio/portugal/interior.aspx?content_id=1882361&page=-1&success=1
Does anyone know what happened when Amaral appealed against his criminal conviction re Leonor Cipriano?
Was that accepted by the Judge at the first attempt, or did he have to go to a higher court to get the appeal heard? Was it actually heard at all - or was it not allowed to be heard? All I know is that it failed - whether it failed to be heard or was heard and then thrown out - I don't know.
Anyone got any info on this? It might give us a clue as to how these things work in practise - although I realise that his previous failed appeal was in a Criminal court and so might not apply to this appeal.
Thanks for that info Carana.
I think this says that his appeal was heard and rejected ....
http://www.dn.pt/inicio/portugal/interior.aspx?content_id=1882361
Carana beat me to the punch, I see ....
Thanks Ferryman. I'm assuming that Amaral accepted the first rejection - and did not choose to take it further - although from what I have read here - he could have done.
Has someone been reading this thread? @)(++(*
But as supporters shared the news, calling it a victory for “people who put their heads above the parapet”, an internet campaign trying to prove “there is no appeal” and that Amaral is simply raising money under false pretences is trying to gather steam.
Has someone been reading this thread? @)(++(*
But as supporters shared the news, calling it a victory for “people who put their heads above the parapet”, an internet campaign trying to prove “there is no appeal” and that Amaral is simply raising money under false pretences is trying to gather steam.
Has someone been reading this thread? @)(++(*
But as supporters shared the news, calling it a victory for “people who put their heads above the parapet”, an internet campaign trying to prove “there is no appeal” and that Amaral is simply raising money under false pretences is trying to gather steam.
If these people were so sure of the mccanns winning the appeal, they wouldn't be trying this stupidity.
Well, it takes all sorts. 8(*(
Actually ... it is Mr Amaral whose appeal may be heard ... so in those circumstances it would be for him to win or lose it.
Actually ... it is Mr Amaral whose appeal may be heard ... so in those circumstances it would be for him to win or lose it.
May be heard? Will be examined along with the reply filed by the McCann's lawyers.
Any idea why the journalist did not approach Mr Amaral's lawyer for her information but had to rely instead on the Drs McCann lawyers?
Any idea why the journalist did not approach Mr Amaral's lawyer for her information but had to rely instead on the Drs McCann lawyers?
Does it matter ?
From what I gather, it was to confirm with the McCanns' lawyers whether they had filed a response to Amaral's appeal.
It's a joke Stephen. First, some on here question the fact that Mr Amaral appealed, they said he hadn't, and said they want official sources, which were given, IE in the form of a court receipt and also his own words, AND a news article, but still wouldn't believe it, now, its confirmed by the Mccanns lawyers, they say, well.....why wasn't Amaral asked ?
@)(++(*
Thanks Carana.
I don't have a great deal of confidence in a journalist who can't count.
It's a joke Stephen. First, some on here question the fact that Mr Amaral appealed, they said he hadn't, and said they want official sources, which were given, IE in the form of a court receipt and also his own words, AND a news article, but still wouldn't believe it, now, its confirmed by the Mccanns lawyers, they say, well.....why wasn't Amaral asked ?
@)(++(*
Judging by comments elsewhere, some people are getting very irate, or as I would prefer to call it, s####### bricks. 8)--))
I doubt that we'll hear much more about it until chicken-flu season starts again. A bit of a dead duck for the moment.
Any idea why the journalist did not approach Mr Amaral's lawyer for her information but had to rely instead on the Drs McCann lawyers?
must be silly people because I can't see any reason to get irate about anythng at all here, but maybe I'm stupid etc
@)(++(*
Take a look at the other places Mercury.
They're not too happy. 8)-)))
Thank you Anna. We are just pleased because Amaral's appeal has been confirmed as filed. After pages of posters doubting his word that he had filed his appeal, it is now confirmed by an impeccable source.
I only recall one poster doubting that the appeal had been filed
Really, so who was that ? 8**8:/:
As yet we don't know whether he is appealing against the verdict or the sentence.....his statement in Portuguese did not make it clear...that's the problem with translations
So we await for the appeal.
So the appeal fund stands on the cusp of 36 grand.
How much will he actually need, and for what?
So the appeal fund stands on the cusp of 36 grand.For what ?
How much will he actually need, and for what?
That's the $50m question ferryman.
700,000 should cover it.
I think the award will be reduced substantially on appeal since such an award was unprecedented in Portugal but as they say, time will tell.
Not true.
The position is that far the most common libel actions in Portuguese law are criminal libel actions where damage awards are nominal.
In Portuguese civil libel actions (much rarer in Portugal) there is no limit to the size of the award, save for any limit that might be determined by the nature of the claim.
Here, we are talking about a book that raised substantial sums in sales (in vast numbers) across countries of Europe.
Not true.
Here, we are talking about a book that raised substantial sums in sales (in vast numbers) across countries of Europe.
and which the Mccanns said to, we'll have that, though they were devastated by it, and which caused them so suffer from depression and anxietyThey stopped him
How do you square that circle?
They stopped him
Too late. They waited a year before trying to ban his book. It was on sale in many countries and the ban only applied to Portugal, then it was overturned. More copies were sold due to the publicity generated. You can ban a book, but you can't erase the thoughts of those who read it. Suing him just gave his thesis more publicity and more integrity. It suggested to some that he had hit a nerve.
very few in the Uk have heard about the book..AFAIAC....they had no choice but to sue...no choice at all
NOPE.
No, it was about two things, REVENGE and MONEY.
Too late. They waited a year before trying to ban his book. It was on sale in many countries and the ban only applied to Portugal, then it was overturned. More copies were sold due to the publicity generated. You can ban a book, but you can't erase the thoughts of those who read it. Suing him just gave his thesis more publicity and more integrity. It suggested to some that he had hit a nerve.
NOPE.
No, it was about two things, REVENGE and MONEY.
Can I ask you a question Stephen? Would you be happy to let a book circulate saying that you drugged your child then covered up her death, then hid her body and said she had been abducted?
2 Salient points.
First, mccann was willing to forgive a fictional abductor.
Second, the nature of Madeleine's disappearance is undetermined.
as usual you have not answered the question...if the crime is undetermined then amaral has no right to say the parents done it
That's very true davel, that's why it is a thesis.
Was Amaral purporting a Thesis when he said, several times, that The McCanns disposed of the body of their Daughter?
That's very true davel, that's why it is a thesis.
That was a contention. Despite what Mr Amaral might write or say, there is no way he can know for sure what happened to Maddie. Only those involved directly in her disappearance, assuming such a person or persons exist, can know the answer to that mystery.
but amaral did claim he knew for sure....
as usual you have not answered the question...if the crime is undetermined then amaral has no right to say the parents done it
That was a contention. Despite what Mr Amaral might write or say, there is no way he can know for sure what happened to Maddie. Only those involved directly in her disappearance, assuming such a person or persons exist, can know the answer to that mystery.
The facts are the facts.
Crime unknown, ONLY TO THOSE WHO REMOVED MADELEINE.
That has yet to be determined.
That was a contention.
Sorry, what do you mean by "A Contention?" Amaral did state it categorically, so it ceased to be A Thesis.
One would be hard pushed to find legal cause in his book, despite the frequent and proven lies. It's what happened after the book that drove The McCanns.
For just how long were they supposed to go on putting up with this? The ghastly man was on a roll. It just got worse and worse.
He was begging to be sued.
But one that the average reader might take to be fact, based on the "we, policemen, experts..." type of statements.
How many people would bother to question his team's understanding of DNA, for example? A casual reading makes it sound as if he knew what he was talking about. Ditto concerning the significance of the dogs' alerts, and numerous lost-in-confusion issues.
My main objection is not that he wrote a book, was the lead in a "documentary" and was on every media outlet that would have him, nor even that he made a substantial amount of money in the process.
My main gripe is that he presented himself as an "expert" in order to defend his "honour", when he could have taken a step back from it and most probably would still have had a best-seller without the need to push his hypothesis as "what really happened" to the equivalent of those who assume that anything in a tabloid is substantiated fact.
I also think that a more humble attitude could have done a lot to push Portugal foward in terms of the limited resources at hand.
As an example, there was an interview with Lennie Harper (Haut de la Garenne). He openly admitted that he was faced with a massive situation that he had tried to deal with the best he could at the time. How far that's true or not, I don't know, but at least he more or less admitted that he was out of his depth and got side-tracked.
Well, we're all human and make mistakes. Personally, I prefer reading an account of someone who can admit to them, rather than insisting that mysterious and unsubstantiated conspiracies prevented them from proving the "truth", particularly when it concerns a missing child.
Amaral didn't lose the latest action because he was proven to be wrong, he lost it because he caused unnecessary suffering to Kate and Gerry McCann.
I have a feeling he pushed the envelope in order to promote the book but he went too far imo.
Amaral didn't lose the latest action because he was proven to be wrong, he lost it because he caused unnecessary suffering to Kate and Gerry McCann.
He lost it because he was proven to be wrong.
On innumerable counts.
So, in your opinion, how did Amaral prove that The McCanns done it?
Amaral accused them of heinous crimes of which they are innocent.
That's why he lost the libel trial.
Done what ?
His contention was that it was accidental death and not the mccanns 'dunnit'.
Amaral accused them of heinous crimes of which they are innocent.
That's why he lost the libel trial.
I thought he was shafted because he used privileged information ?
Rather for how he obtained information not for what he said?
And that.
And that.I thought that Jose Publico could have said whatever it was without fear of reprisal ?
Well someone had to have hidden Madeleine's body. Or do you think the Abductor did that?
Using privileged information was a criminal violation for which he was not punished.
He lost the libel trial because he told proven untruths (by the bucket-load) that lowered the reputation of the McCanns.
That's what libel is, statements proven to be untrue that lower reputation ....
Well someone had to have hidden Madeleine's body. Or do you think the Abductor did that?
That Eleanor is unknown.
and you are more than well aware of my view on the abduction scenario...
I am indeed, Stephen. But do allow me to patronise you. At least you do come up with some good stuff now and again.
And your opinion is every bit as valid as that of anyone else.
If only you and Davel would stop trying to rip chunks out of the intellect of each other.
Using privileged information was a criminal violation for which he was not punished.
He lost the libel trial because he told proven untruths (by the bucket-load) that lowered the reputation of the McCanns.
That's what libel is, statements proven to be untrue that lower reputation ....
You still haven't grasped the nettle yet ferryman. It wasn't a libel trial and his thesis hasn't been proved wrong no matter how much you wish it. The recent trial was for damages suffered by the McCanns pursuant to the publication and distribution of Amaral's book and DVD.
The British Press including the Guardian whose article you posted didn't have the first notion what the civil action was about.
I think it's you and others of your persuasion who don't have the first notion ....
You are wrong in your interpretation and everyone knows it just as you were wrong when you claimed the AG had 'cleared' the parents.
Amaral now has the opportunity to appeal the amount of the damages award made against him and I for one wish him every success.
Because he was wrong. How can he have caused unnecessary suffering if he was right?
Nope.
Right on every count.
Except that I never claimed the Portuguese prosecutors "cleared" the parents.
They didn't need to.
The McCanns were never charged with anything.
Because he was wrong. How can he have caused unnecessary suffering if he was right?
I thought he was shafted because he used privileged information ?
Rather for how he obtained information not for what he said?
Until such time as Maddie's fate has been determined they will always remain suspect.
But they are not suspects Angelo. The police forces of two countries have ruled them out of the investigation. They do not believe Amaral's 'thesis' because there is no evidence to support it - and the wishful thinking of a small group of people in a little corner of the internet will not change that fact.
But they are not suspects Angelo. The police forces of two countries have ruled them out of the investigation. They do not believe Amaral's 'thesis' because there is no evidence to support it - and the wishful thinking of a small group of people in a little corner of the internet will not change that fact.
I said they will remain suspect, not suspects ie until such time as Maddie's fate is known they will always be surrounded by suspicion.
There isn't an iota of evidence to support an abduction either.
That would depend on how much of a mystery her disappearance is to them.
I'm sure that they had no inkling of how their actions would result in such public vilification.
The appeal court has agreed to hear Mr Amaral's appealSo again he talks of appeal against the sentence rather than the judgement
http://pjga.blogspot.com/
So again he talks of appeal against the sentence rather than the judgement
Most odd that there is no announcement of the joyous news on the gofundme blog.
One contributor has made reference to it, but that's it ....
Ms Baulch, these days, seems to be writing blogs .....
Most odd that there is no announcement of the joyous news on the gofundme blog.
One contributor has made reference to it, but that's it ....
Ms Baulch, these days, seems to be writing blogs .....
Yes Ms Baulch seems to have turned her back on amaral
Wonder why
and how did you come to that deduction ?
He obviously needs a PR person for quantity and timing of news and stories.
Her name is completely wiped from the gofundme site
So what.
The appeal has been granted.
Are you pleased ferryman, justice is being served ?
I'm pleased I have been proved right again
As I pointed out amarals right to appeal was not automatic when sceptics were claims he already had the right to appeal
Yes Ms Baulch seems to have turned her back on amaral
Wonder why
Maybe she is uncomfortable with the false claim - being made daily on that site - regarding the number of people who have donated to his fund. Every donation is added onto the total as a 'new person' and ignores the fact that many are actually from the same people making repeat donations.
So what is the problem if people donate more than once.
That's up to them.
Have people donated to the mccanns more than once ?
Anyway, the key point, the appeal is accepted.
I have no problem with people donating more than once. I do have a problem with disinformation deliberately being peddled to the public.
It's dishonest IMO.
So people who donated to the mccanns fund not knowing what the money was being used for certainly have the right to say it was dishonest.
Would you not agree ?
Still desperately trying to change the subject I see.
The evidence of the lie being purported on that site is there for everyone to see.
Why do you think it is being allowed to remain - when AFAIK it would be a simple task to correct it?
Any ideas?
The real problem you have is with people donating to Amaral.
Everything else is a red herring.
It seems to be the way the site works, rather than a deliberate move by anyone using it. It keeps count of donations rather than donators. You can hardly blame the users for the way the site works.
When a false total of people who have donated is being quoted elsewhere - then I do think they should correct it. Surely it doesn't take rocket science to change 'people' to 'donations' or remove the lie altogether. So why haven't they done that?
Could it be they are happy in the knowledge that it looks as if far more people are donating than really are?
Who knows.
(bye for now)
Why should 'Gofundme' change the way the site works? Does it matter how many people have donated? What matters is that the target has been exceeded and the costs can be met, surely That was the point of the exercise.
It's important to point out that the organisers of this fund are lying
It's important to point out that the organisers of this fund are lying
It's important to point out that the organisers of this fund are lying
All the Gofundme pages are the same. At the top it says 'raised by x people' and lower down it says 'x donations'. The two figures are the same.
It isn't due to anyone lying in my opinion, it's due to the way Gofundme is set up. Unless people have proof that the fundraisers have control over what their page says in this respect they should stop making accusations.
When a false total of people who have donated is being quoted elsewhere - then I do think they should correct it. Surely it doesn't take rocket science to change 'people' to 'donations' or remove the lie altogether. So why haven't they done that?
Could it be they are happy in the knowledge that it looks as if far more people are donating than really are?
Who knows.
(bye for now)
How many donated in this very large group?One.
(https://pbs.twimg.com/media/CGQBw8RXIAAzOgi.jpg)
How many donated in this very large group?
(https://pbs.twimg.com/media/CGQBw8RXIAAzOgi.jpg)
One.
One person (almost certainly from no police force) who felt compelled to propagate that lie.
Restrictions on the Private Life of a Police Officer
Members must abstain from any activity which is likely to interfere with the impartial discharge of duty or likely to give rise to the impression that the activity may do so. Police officers are also required not to take any active part in politics.
http://glospolfed.org.uk/rules-and-regs/restrictions-on-the-private-life-of-a-police-officer/
Restrictions on the Private Life of a Police Officer
Members must abstain from any activity which is likely to interfere with the impartial discharge of duty or likely to give rise to the impression that the activity may do so. Police officers are also required not to take any active part in politics.
http://glospolfed.org.uk/rules-and-regs/restrictions-on-the-private-life-of-a-police-officer/
Under whose orders was this case reopened. Stephen?
There are lots of rules that a police officer must abide by.
Madeleine's disappearance is not a political issue
David Cameron after 'guidance' from R. Brooks gave orders to SY.
So where Anna does it say, and enshrined in law, that police officers can't comment on this or other cases ?
Lying about what precisely?UPDATE #24
Believe what you wish to believe Stephen. I know what I know.
Tell me one thing Anna.
Do you actually believe all members of the police force, say in the UK believe the mccanns story ?
Tell me one thing Anna.
Do you actually believe all members of the police force, say in the UK believe the mccanns story ?
That's like asking me. if I believe that no-one in the UK is racial. However it is against the law to act upon it.
There isn't a "story" to "believe"
There is their, strictly factual, account of events, with any errors accounted for by genuine memory lapses that are entirely predictable and normal by anyone in their stressful situation.
Tell me one thing Anna.
Do you actually believe all members of the police force, say in the UK believe the mccanns story ?
UPDATE #24
2 MONTHS AGO
22
22 people like this update£32,675!!
Fantastic support has been shown to Gonçalo Amaral via your comments and shares! Just one donation away from 2,000 donors. Thank you all so much for continuing to support Snr Amaral.
do you need it any clearer or do YOU wish to perpetuate a lie. This was posted 2 months ago on the site by LB
I would be very worried if there are any who do ... in my opinion it would mean we are being exposed to officers who do not understand rules of evidence.
There again, it takes all sorts and as we know there are police officers who are a disgrace to the uniform.
Cheers; but the "counting" story has been done to death. Most sensible folk would read that as 2000 donations.
Any road oop me duck I would have thought the only relevant thing was 'ow much seein' as 'ow that's what counts in the long run.
You may see donations ... I see donors. Funny that.
and how many repeat donations to the mccanns get.
This criticism of the fund for Amaral's legal expenses is becoming increasingly ridiculous.
IMHO of course? 8)-)))
Precisely the situation regarding the fully audited fund which had to be set up to finance the search for a missing little girl who no-one in authority was looking for.
I think both the PJ and the UK police might disagree with you. Who wasn't investigating when the fund was launched on 16th May, thirteen days after her disappearance?
I think both the PJ and the UK police might disagree with you. Who wasn't investigating when the fund was launched on 16th May, thirteen days after her disappearance?
Cheers; but the "counting" story has been done to death. Most sensible folk would read that as 2000 donations.
Any road oop me duck I would have thought the only relevant thing was 'ow much seein' as 'ow that's what counts in the long run.
I would think the mccanns realised very early on how inept the PJ were and that they would need to organise things themselves
I would think the mccanns realised very early on how inept the PJ were and that they would need to organise things themselves
They were certainly amazingly perceptive. They were criticising the Portuguese authorities on 3/4th May 2007. It was almost as if they made their minds up before the Portuguese police even got to the Ocean Club.
I would think the mccanns realised very early on how inept the PJ were and that they would need to organise things themselves
Perhaps by now they realise that it's not so easy as it looks. Loads of money spent and nothing achieved.
Restrictions on the Private Life of a Police Officer
Members must abstain from any activity which is likely to interfere with the impartial discharge of duty or likely to give rise to the impression that the activity may do so. Police officers are also required not to take any active part in politics.
http://glospolfed.org.uk/rules-and-regs/restrictions-on-the-private-life-of-a-police-officer/
Restrictions on the Private Life of a Police Officer
Members must abstain from any activity which is likely to interfere with the impartial discharge of duty or likely to give rise to the impression that the activity may do so. Police officers are also required not to take any active part in politics.
http://glospolfed.org.uk/rules-and-regs/restrictions-on-the-private-life-of-a-police-officer/
One of the issues surrounding the McCann v Amaral case concerns whether restrictions as a police officer were void as soon as he had officially left or not.
Restrictions on the Private Life of a Police Officer
Members must abstain from any activity which is likely to interfere with the impartial discharge of duty or likely to give rise to the impression that the activity may do so. Police officers are also required not to take any active part in politics.
http://glospolfed.org.uk/rules-and-regs/restrictions-on-the-private-life-of-a-police-officer/
I am not clear what is being talked about here. Are you saying no policeman as a private citizen can offer opinion on open cases? because, if so, that has certainly not been the case in this case. There has been a stream of retired Brit police offering their tuppence.
I think you will find that police officers are very supportive of other police officers who have hit problems. What you seem to be suggesting is that it would illegal for the police federation paid for by policemen to assist a police officer in trouble.
I don't recall retired police officers being mentioned, Mercury. As to the quote it was information in response to another post, but you will have to read back for that.
I was suggesting nothing. Are you a police officer?
You were quoting so I assume you felt it relevant to the discussion about police donating to GA fund. N.
... Police officers are also required not to take any active part in politics ...Some people went hundreds of miles to ensure that an ex-policeman was prevented from taking an active part in local politics.
http://glospolfed.org.uk/rules-and-regs/restrictions-on-the-private-life-of-a-police-officer/
Here you go
http://miscarriageofjustice.co/index.php?topic=6269.msg269437#msg269437
Here you go
http://miscarriageofjustice.co/index.php?topic=6269.msg269437#msg269437
Seems the mccanns aren't too happy.
http://www.dailystar.co.uk/news/latest-news/463136/New-slap-face-Maddie-parents-Cop-wins-fight-libel-case-appeal
How exasperating for them. The man should have rolled over and paid up without a fight like the UK newspapers did. Who does he think he is? @)(++(*
How exasperating for them. The man should have rolled over and paid up without a fight like the UK newspapers did. Who does he think he is? @)(++(*
How exasperating for them. The man should have rolled over and paid up without a fight like the UK newspapers did. Who does he think he is? @)(++(*
(a) IMO no 'source close to the McCanns' would make any comments to a newspaper.
(b) Is it your opinion that the McCanns didn't know Amaral was going to appeal - or that their lawyer hasn't already explained all the possible eventualities to them?
How would you know there are no 'sources' close to the mccanns ?
(a) IMO no 'source close to the McCanns' would make any comments to a newspaper.
(b) Is it your opinion that the McCanns didn't know Amaral was going to appeal - or that their lawyer hasn't already explained all the possible eventualities to them?
How would you know there are no 'sources' close to the mccanns ?
&%+((£
Anna, that is this thread?
The correct spelling is sauces
Common sense. Everyone ''close to the McCanns'' will be well aware of the pitfalls of talking to the press. IMO they would run a mile first before talking to any reporter - let alone one from the STAR.
a. Do UK newspapers tell lies then iyo? How absolutely disgraceful!
b. They may have thought they had defeated him initially. His assets were frozen so he had no funds to appeal with. I expect it was quite exasperating to see the bulk of the money for his appeal being raised by UK people. That was a bit of a slap in the face, wasn't it? Of course it was only 'trolls', but who'd have thought that they (the dregs of society according to some) would have been able to raise the amount they did?
Common sense. Everyone ''close to the McCanns'' will be well aware of the pitfalls of talking to the press. IMO they would run a mile first before talking to any reporter - let alone one from the STAR.
The mccanns would be well aware that amaral would appeal
They would have been fully expecting it
In your opinion, unless you have inside knowledge?No not my opinion
Yes he should have done... Like Bennett
If he had he may have kept some of his money
a. Do UK newspapers tell lies then iyo? How absolutely disgraceful!
b. They may have thought they had defeated him initially. His assets were frozen so he had no funds to appeal with. I expect it was quite exasperating to see the bulk of the money for his appeal being raised by UK people. That was a bit of a slap in the face, wasn't it? Of course it was only 'trolls', but who'd have thought that they (the dregs of society according to some) would have been able to raise the amount they did?
I'm sure the McCanns are well aware of how the Portuguese legal system grinds along by now - and their lawyer will have spelled it out to them anyway IMO.
I have no idea what the McCanns think of the fund. Maybe they are glad to see the 'pity me' excuse of ''It's not fair - I'd love to appeal but I'm just too poverty stricken ' - removed from the equation.
If Amaral is in a position (because of the fund) to carry out his stated intention of sueing not only the McCanns but their friends too - then I can't wait to see what his grounds will be for sueing people.
Any ideas?
and don't forget the Supreme Court, and The European Court of Human Rights......................
LOL
Maybe his supporters should consider organising bequests...
You may be laughing now Carana, but don't bet on the outcome this time.
In his last appeal against the mccanns, he won.
Only to lose that one later.
No not my opinion
Everyone knew apart from you it seems that amaral would appeal and the case could drag on for years
I'm sure the McCanns are well aware of how the Portuguese legal system grinds along by now - and their lawyer will have spelled it out to them anyway IMO.
I have no idea what the McCanns think of the fund. Maybe they are glad to see the 'pity me' excuse of ''It's not fair - I'd love to appeal but I'm just too poverty stricken ' - removed from the equation.
If Amaral is in a position (because of the fund) to carry out his stated intention of sueing not only the McCanns but their friends too - then I can't wait to see what his grounds will be for sueing people like Diana Webster for instance.
Any ideas?
Does that mean 'everyone' knew that he was going to have the funds needed to appeal? I believe the appeal will be heard on 7th October. Quite quick, eh?
Only to lose that one later.
I'm sure the McCanns are well aware of how the Portuguese legal system grinds along by now - and their lawyer will have spelled it out to them anyway IMO.
I have no idea what the McCanns think of the fund. Maybe they are glad to see the 'pity me' excuse of ''It's not fair - I'd love to appeal but I'm just too poverty stricken ' - removed from the equation.
If Amaral is in a position (because of the fund) to carry out his stated intention of sueing not only the McCanns but their friends too - then I can't wait to see what his grounds will be for sueing people.
Any ideas?
Does that mean 'everyone' knew that he was going to have the funds needed to appeal? I believe the appeal will be heard on 7th October. Quite quick, eh?Yes looks like the first stage at least will be on 7th October.
Any idea how the McCanns are funding the ongoing litigation ? Seems stopping Amaral damaging the search for Madeleine can't now be used as a justification for using the fund as the judge said that that wasn't the case. Are the reports we have seen over the last few days about the McCanns moving money linked ?
Is that the date of the hearing? Maybe it is. The letter said that that was when it was going to be sent to the appeals court, but I can't see why it wouldn't have been forwarded immediately.
Do you mean when the lower court re-instated the book ban rejected by the higher court? The higher court that this appeal may also reach eventually?
I don't know, Carana. Maybe i read it wrong?
and don't forget the Supreme Court, and The European Court of Human Rights......................
This case will go nowhere near the European Court of Human Rights ....
The judge found that it couldn't be proven that he had damaged the search. Nuance.
I wish to apologise to everyone for making a wrong prediction about 12 weeks ago.
Here it is
"And I am sure nobody will have any objection if the gofundme total raised increases to £40K when the Sun Mirror Mail Telegraph Guardian Times Independent BBC ITV and Sky all finally end their recent silence about it?..."
http://miscarriageofjustice.co/index.php?topic=6269.msg246251#msg246251
In fact the gofundme total is now approaching £40K without any help at all from the Sun Mirror Mail Telegraph Guardian Times Independent BBC ITV and Sky.
No nuance Carana.
What are the possible outcomes?
1. The ruling will be upheld as is (in which case I'm not sure what the exceptions would be in order to appeal to the Supreme Court).
2. Some points are found in his favour, which may enable him to swan off with some - or even most - of his money.
3. The ruling is overturned, in which case the McCanns will no doubt appeal.
Any other variations?
Seems to cover most of it.
Whoever loses this appeal, will undoubtably appeal as well.
So on and on it will go...........................
No nuance Carana.
Not necessarily.
In the event of No. 2 (a partial concession), both parties may decide to call it quits, depending on what any new ruling will actually state.
No. 3 (having the ruling overturned) might ironically end up being the worst provisional financial outcome for him.
The judge found that it couldn't be proven that he had damaged the search. Nuance.
Some people went hundreds of miles to ensure that an ex-policeman was prevented from taking an active part in local politics.
We have discussed this on the Forum before, Pegasus, the paranoia which precipitated this obsession ignored local conditions and the fact he was not just an ex-policeman but one who carried a considerable amount of baggage with him.
The Portuguese have been making great inroads into dealing with the corruption of inspectors and local government.
The result of the appeal will be interesting nonetheless.
a. Do UK newspapers tell lies then iyo? How absolutely disgraceful!
b. They may have thought they had defeated him initially. His assets were frozen so he had no funds to appeal with. I expect it was quite exasperating to see the bulk of the money for his appeal being raised by UK people. That was a bit of a slap in the face, wasn't it? Of course it was only 'trolls', but who'd have thought that they (the dregs of society according to some) would have been able to raise the amount they did?
Indeed it might have been truly amazing to the Portuguese that the bulk of the money was raised by UK people for his appeal ... had they been the slightest bit interested.The gofundme page is in English. Most people in Portugal speak Portuguese.
Doesn't it make you wonder why there was not the same resonance among Portuguese sceptics as among British sceptics.
Perhaps some in Portugal are busy covering their tracks ... and others have seen the light being closer to the source.
George Mparrbe rides again methinks! He would have said:
What you has to understand in dis case is when de judge say not proven what she really mean is dat she tink he dunnit but will not put it in her judgement.
Yeah that makes sense George.
The PT system would have required countering evidence... What evidence do you think could have been produced?
- Part of the hysteria preceded his book, some of which was the result of leaks under his tenure. Convenient.
- Paiva testified that Amaral's book hadn't stopped the PJ from continuing to investigate leads. Hardly surpising, as he was the desk officer. However, no one asked him which leads he'd actually followed up on.
We shall see.
However, if the mccanns lose their appeal, their egos will result in an appeal.
Hysteria ?
You don't have to read Amaral's book, not to believe in the mccanns story of abduction.
The gofundme page is in English. Most people in Portugal speak Portuguese.
How much have the Portuguese sceptics contributed towards the (Portuguese) fund for legal expenses?
How much have the Portuguese sceptics contributed towards the (Portuguese) fund for legal expenses?
How much have the Portuguese sceptics contributed towards the (Portuguese) fund for legal expenses?It's because the gofundme format is much better at fundraising than having a seperate website.
Set the "parents-left-them-alone" issue, for a moment: what else contributed to the dunnit mental conviction aside from PJ garbled leaks, during his tenure, prior to - but reinforced by - the spoutings of the erstwhile senior officer in the case?
It's because the gofundme format is much better at fundraising than having a seperate website.
If there was a gofundme page in Portuguese language it would have many donators IMO.
The PT system would have required countering evidence... What evidence do you think could have been produced?
- Part of the hysteria preceded his book, some of which was the result of leaks under his tenure. Convenient.
- Paiva testified that Amaral's book hadn't stopped the PJ from continuing to investigate leads. Hardly surpising, as he was the desk officer. However, no one asked him which leads he'd actually followed up on.
It's because the gofundme format is much better at fundraising than having a seperate website.
If there was a gofundme page in Portuguese language it would have many donators IMO.
Of course there's a nuance. There can be no question that a book of lies sold across countries of Europe, declaring that Madeleine is definitely dead, that her parents dunit and know she's dead, that same said parents caused her death, hid her body, fabricated an 'abduction' and launched a fraudulent 'appeal' in their (dead) daughter's name, will have harmed the search for Madeleine.
Established, beyond all doubt.
But 'proving' it, or perhaps more accurately, quantifying it, was the tricky bit.
It's because the gofundme format is much better at fundraising than having a seperate website.
If there was a gofundme page in Portuguese language it would have many donators IMO.
The GFM format is only more effective when it is Facebook verified. Why didn't one of the PJGA administrators put their own name behind it to promote the cause in both Portugal & the rest of the world?£38,325 = effective
As Ms Baulch is no longer the account holder, do contributors have any idea where their donations are even going now?
£38,325 = effective
It's only effective if the money has reached the correct destination.I challenge you to name any other fund associated with this case that gives you any indication at all how much it has received this year?
Perhaps a statement from Ms Baulch about why she was "sold down the river" would be in order, just to clarify matters for the contributors.
I challenge you to name any other fund associated with this case that gives you any indication at all how much it has received this year?
Or to name any other fund in this case which accurately states what its objects are?
Aren't people interested who they are sending money to?
Ok, but how about naming a fund associated only with this case, that states its aims accurately, and gives you any indication how much it has received this year?
PJGA and PJGA gofundme qualify. Any others?.
SY/Operation Grange?@)(++(*
Aren't people interested who they are sending money to?
I think you would need to ask them about that. Clearly people are happy to donate, there is no coercion involved.
People seemed delighted to dig into their pockets for Mr Amaral's appeal fund ... and that is their right.
It is also the right of people to donate to Madeleine's fund if that is what they wish to do ... and I cannot see how sceptics think one is fine and the other suspect ... and go on about Madeleine's fund interminably.
At least in the beginning Ms Baulch was a visible link and it may be due to her effort that to date £38000+ has been raised in contributions. Whether or not "Portimao PC" will have the same resonance remains to be seen.
Question for any legal eagles
Could you explain what this sentence means, please?
The general rule is that the appeal does not suspend the proceedings unless the appealing party pays a deposit or presents a bank guarantee.
8. Appeal
8.1 Grounds for appeal
The general rule is that a party may appeal to the court of second instance (“Tribunal da Relação”) when the value of the lawsuit is higher than EUR5,000 and the decision is unfavourable to the appealing party in an amount higher than EUR2,500.01 (Cf. Article 629 of the CPC). The court of second instance decides both on legal and factual issues.
A party may appeal to the Supreme Court when the value of the lawsuit is higher than EUR30,000 and the decision is unfavourable to the appealing party in an amount higher than EUR15,000.01.
The Supreme Court only rules on legal issues and, in most cases, cannot revoke the second instance judgment concerning the proven facts.
In most cases the parties cannot move to the Supreme Court if the first and the second instance courts have issued identical decisions with similar grounds.
The general rule is that the appeal does not suspend the proceedings unless the appealing party pays a deposit or presents a bank guarantee.
PS
Ahhh
Artigo 647.º (art.º 692.º CPC 1961)
Efeito da apelação
1 - A apelação tem efeito meramente devolutivo, exceto nos casos previstos nos números seguintes.
2 - A apelação tem efeito suspensivo do processo nos casos previstos na lei.
3 - Tem efeito suspensivo da decisão a apelação:
a) Da decisão que ponha termo ao processo em ações sobre o estado das pessoas;
b) Da decisão que ponha termo ao processo nas ações referidas nas alíneas a) e b) do n.º 3 do artigo 629.º e nas que respeitem à posse ou à propriedade de casa de habitação;
c) Do despacho de indeferimento do incidente processado por apenso;
d) Do despacho que indefira liminarmente ou não ordene a providência cautelar;
e) Das decisões previstas nas alíneas e) e f) do n.º 2 do artigo 644.º;
f) Nos demais casos previstos por lei.
4 - Fora dos casos previstos no número anterior, o recorrente pode requerer, ao interpor o recurso, que a apelação tenha efeito suspensivo quando a execução da decisão lhe cause prejuízo considerável e se ofereça para prestar caução, ficando a atribuição desse efeito condicionada à efetiva prestação da caução no prazo fixado pelo tribunal.
I didn't know what "suspensive" meant ... while having a look I found this which mirrors an explanation of the appeals process given to us either by you of Jean Pierre.
**Snip
In most jurisdictions, the court of appeal is not at liberty to reverse any decision of the lower court (either a verdict from a jury or judge), even if they disagree with the verdict. The issue to be resolved is not whether the jury or judge was wrong, but whether the conclusions were reasonable. A lower court’s findings of fact cannot be reversed on appeal unless the appealing party, (the appellant), demonstrates that a reasonable basis does not exist for the finding of the trial court and the finding is clearly wrong. Thus, a court of appeal will usually defer to the trial court regarding factual findings and not reverse the decision unless it is manifestly erroneous.
This is also true with respect to the determination of fault. An appellate court will generally not disturb a lower court’s allocation of fault between the parties unless it too is clearly wrong or manifestly erroneous.
An appellate court will review a lower court’s determination of law without giving the deference it gives to issues of fact. Thus, unlike factual determinations, if the court of appeals disagrees with the lower court’s application of law, it can reverse the decision.
http://www.medicalmalpracticelouisiana.com/legal-process/what-are-appeals-and-when-are-they-filed
So, only where the higher court considers the lower court has screwed up on points of law wiill it reverse the decision of the lower court (uphold an appeal).
As discussed before, Amaral has an automatic right to lodge an appeal, but not an automatic right to expect that it will be allowed, or even heard ....
Different jurisdiction (USA) but it looks like very similar jurisprudence to me. I don't think Mr Amaral had any choice but to appeal if he wanted to retain any of the money he made from his book on Madeleine McCann.
I think it is as more learned posters have said, not an appeal about the Judge's decision but about the amount of the award. So even if Mr Amaral's appeal is allowed and he goes on to win a reduction in the amount awarded against him (which I think is unlikely) ... the money is all that will be in his favour ... his reputation remains in tatters and his lucrative career as a media pundit will have probably received a blow from which it cannot recover.
Different jurisdiction (USA) but it looks like very similar jurisprudence to me. I don't think Mr Amaral had any choice but to appeal if he wanted to retain any of the money he made from his book on Madeleine McCann.
I think it is as more learned posters have said, not an appeal about the Judge's decision but about the amount of the award. So even if Mr Amaral's appeal is allowed and he goes on to win a reduction in the amount awarded against him (which I think is unlikely) ... the money is all that will be in his favour ... his reputation remains in tatters and his lucrative career as a media pundit will have probably received a blow from which it cannot recover.
Now that's a classic.
@)(++(* @)(++(* @)(++(*
So, only where the higher court considers the lower court has screwed up on points of law wiill it reverse the decision of the lower court (uphold an appeal).
As discussed before, Amaral has an automatic right to lodge an appeal, but not an automatic right to expect that it will be allowed, or even heard ....
I've submitted myself to a wee bit of reading in the attempt to be informed about events; from that I have reached particular conclusions.
You may have reached different conclusions but with all due respect you appear to have nothing to support them. Nice of you to think my reasoning can be rather 'classic' at times, so thanks for that.
I've submitted myself to a wee bit of reading in the attempt to be informed about events; from that I have reached particular conclusions.
You may have reached different conclusions but with all due respect you appear to have nothing to support them. Nice of you to think my reasoning can be rather 'classic' at times, so thanks for that.
I don't believe that the law practices in Louisiana USA apply to the country of Portugal. AFAIK, any higher court here can reverse the decision of a lower court. Just recently, a woman had been acquitted of killing her husband's grandmother but a higher court reversed the verdict and convicted her. This decision has now been appealed by the defendant. From this example, you can see, in Portugal, someone can be acquitted and the public prosecutor can appeal the acquittal. This is not allowed in the USA.
Jean-Pierre: Thanks for the info. I believe however that the judge stated in her verdict that the application of the book ban and subsequent fines would only be carried out once all appeals had been exhausted (transito em julgado). Correct me if I am wrong.
I don't believe that the law practices in Louisiana USA apply to the country of Portugal. AFAIK, any higher court here can reverse the decision of a lower court. Just recently, a woman had been acquitted of killing her husband's grandmother but a higher court reversed the verdict and convicted her. This decision has now been appealed by the defendant. From this example, you can see, in Portugal, someone can be acquitted and the public prosecutor can appeal the acquittal. This is not allowed in the USA.
Jean-Pierre: Thanks for the info. I believe however that the judge stated in her verdict that the application of the book ban and subsequent fines would only be carried out once all appeals had been exhausted (transito em julgado). Correct me if I am wrong.
I don't believe that the law practices in Louisiana USA apply to the country of Portugal. AFAIK, any higher court here can reverse the decision of a lower court. Just recently, a woman had been acquitted of killing her husband's grandmother but a higher court reversed the verdict and convicted her. This decision has now been appealed by the defendant. From this example, you can see, in Portugal, someone can be acquitted and the public prosecutor can appeal the acquittal. This is not allowed in the USA.
Jean-Pierre: Thanks for the info. I believe however that the judge stated in her verdict that the application of the book ban and subsequent fines would only be carried out once all appeals had been exhausted (transito em julgado). Correct me if I am wrong.
You are merely giving your expected views based on your bias and your dislike of Amaral.
and before you say it, I don't worship Amaral, and he made some mistakes. However, no one as far as I can see has disproved the accidental death hypothesis.
I find it extraordinary that you think opinions must be formed because of animus to an individual. I have strong opinions concerning Mr Amaral actions ... about the man personally I have no particular feeling of dislike, for the simple reason I don't need to have one.
His actions do not impinge in any way on me or my family ... nor do I know a great deal about him personally ... so why would I dislike a person I do not know.
I would appreciate it if you would refrain from reiterating that I have any personal feeling of animosity towards the man, as I do not, it is his actions and the consequences of those that I criticise. Maybe a little 'grown up' debate is in order here.
Is there any particular reason you can give for the adulation surrounding Mr Amaral which gives him one might say a cult status if the comments attached to his fund to appeal the decision of the Portuguese Court are anything to go by?
You give your opinions all the time, along with a great deal of copying and pasting material.
You frequently give your opinions of other posters and have this rather quaint idea that only mccann supporters have a moral standpoint on this case.
As to cult status, I see that with the following the mccanns have from certain parties.
As do we all, Stephen, including your good self. This is a forum and its really rather the whole point.
If nobody expressed an opinion, then it would be a pretty dull place! 8(0(*
It appears to have been referred to the higher court.
What the appeals court will make of it remains to be seen.
It appears to have been referred to the higher court.
What the appeals court will make of it remains to be seen.
Where did you see that Carana ?
That's my understanding of the recent document posted on the PJGA site:
The right to appeal appears to have been granted by the lower court, which now goes to the appeals court to consider.
Link here
http://pjga.blogspot.nl/2015/09/confirmation.html
"the case proceedings will be sent to the Tribunal da Relação de Lisboa on the 10.07.2015."
Yes. That's what I've gathered as well.
A pending question is what is actually meant by it only being sent to the appeals tribunal a month from now... unless that's an obscure way of wording that that is the date on which it will be considered by a venerable triumvirate over laptops and coffee.
I believe there is a backlog of cases in Portugal.
God knows.
But I imagine it will be sent over in a month and then tabled for hearing a few weeks later.
The PT postal services can't be that impaired, surely?
Would this appeals "hearing" involve anyone other than the judges poring over documents already submitted?
If not, 7 October might be when three judges have a moment to confer.
I have no idea. It may well be that it takes a month to collate the case and prepare for the court to consider it.
And then a few weeks for the consideration of the written evidence, followed by an announcement at end of this year / beginning of next year.
So don't hold your breath.
Have you seen the written evidence in your perusal of the first-instance court ruling?
I have seen the first instance ruling.
Which bits are you referring to, FM?
The written submissions, which I have always assumed not to have been revealed on line?
ETA: I have always tended to assume that that made available on line (of the whole judgment) is a comparatively small segment, and that that the bulk of the judgment is, in fact, contained in written submissions.
Am I wrong about that?
For what its worth, my thoughts on the news of Amaral's appeal are as follows:
Under Portuguese law, Amaral has a right to appeal the decision of the court, as is right and proper.
There are three possibilities:
- That the appeal count will agree the original verdict in which case no further appeals will be allowed
That the appeal court modify the verdict, in which either party can appeal.
That the appeal count overturn the original verdict, in which either party can appeal (probably the McCanns)
The wording of the court documents that the appeal does not stay the decision. To understand this one need to consider the differences between English civil law and European civil law.
In simple terms:
In England, one must seek permission to appeal. If granted, then execution of the decision of the lower count is suspended until the appeal is heard.
In Europe, including Portugal, the right to appeal is automatic. But execution of the decision is not suspended.
There is a logic in this if you look for it.
In England, one must demonstrate pretty sound grounds for an appeal, and it is therefore logical that the judgement is suspended until the appeal is heard.
In Europe, the right to appeal is automatic (although one must show the grounds upon which the appeal is based - not a very high hurdle). But judgement is not suspended - this is to prevent a losing party using the appeals process to "kick the can down the road" for a few months.
_________
What does it mean for this case? Under English law Amaral would have had to show specific grounds for his appeal. And if granted the court decision to ban the book and DVD may have been suspended.
Under Portuguese law, the appeal is in effect a matter of course, and in the meantime the decision to ban book and DVD sales holds.
Hope this helps!
I have a doubt about something though.
The terms of reparation aren't enforceable until the final ruling is pronounced (trânsito em julgado), are they?
I confess I'm having trouble deciphering the details of Art. 647 below, but the gist seems to be along the lines of something you'd originally found that I didn't understand at the time either:
The general rule is that the appeal does not suspend the proceedings unless the appealing party pays a deposit or presents a bank guarantee.'
FWIW, my understanding at the moment is that there could be confusion: what could be suspended in some circumstances is the decision to grant the appeal request.
The bank guarantee is to make sure that the appellant isn't mucking about, but has a genuine cause for concern that needs time to be validated prior to appeal referral.
If that's correct, the "execution of the judgement" doesn't refer to the execution of the terms of reparation, but to the a quo court's ruling to refer the case upwards.
In Amaral's appeal, nothing new of earth-shattering importance had suddenly come to light, and the a quo court hadn't summarily dismissed his request... so there was no reason to suspend the decision to pass it up.
Artigo 647.º (art.º 692.º CPC 1961)
Efeito da apelação
1 - A apelação tem efeito meramente devolutivo, exceto nos casos previstos nos números seguintes.
2 - A apelação tem efeito suspensivo do processo nos casos previstos na lei.
3 - Tem efeito suspensivo da decisão a apelação:
a) Da decisão que ponha termo ao processo em ações sobre o estado das pessoas;
b) Da decisão que ponha termo ao processo nas ações referidas nas alíneas a) e b) do n.º 3 do artigo 629.º e nas que respeitem à posse ou à propriedade de casa de habitação;
c) Do despacho de indeferimento do incidente processado por apenso;
d) Do despacho que indefira liminarmente ou não ordene a providência cautelar;
e) Das decisões previstas nas alíneas e) e f) do n.º 2 do artigo 644.º;
f) Nos demais casos previstos por lei.
4 - Fora dos casos previstos no número anterior, o recorrente pode requerer, ao interpor o recurso, que a apelação tenha efeito suspensivo quando a execução da decisão lhe cause prejuízo considerável e se ofereça para prestar caução, ficando a atribuição desse efeito condicionada à efetiva prestação da caução no prazo fixado pelo tribunal.
A fair point Carana. However, the proceedings in question are the decision by the lower court.
In practice, the ban on the Book and DVD hold, and the court are already holding more than enough money to pay the damages and court fees owing.
So these will remain in place until the appeal is heard.
LOL I'm still confused.
Yes, the proceedings concern the decision by the lower court - it's the lower court that has to stamp the referral. The question is which decision is referred to in Art. 647 et al.
The book / DVD / derivative products saga seems to be history. Amaral doesn't hold the copyright licence anyway.
If the decision referred to the execution of the first instance judgement concerning terms of reparation, Amaral's frozen assets would have had to have been handed over to the McCanns... which doesn't make sense until the appeals process has come to its final conclusion.
Maybe I'm missing something...
No wonder you are confused!
Right, lets try.
Article 647.
Paragraph 1 applies - no suspensive effect.
Unless
Paragraph two applies - to suspend the judgement (you need to refer to paragraph 4 for this).
Or paragraph three applies - to suspend the judgement due to one or more of specific provisions-
Probably section (d) The order dismissing outright or not to order the injunction;
This needs consideration of paragraph 4 - Where the provisions state that if the judgement is not suspended pending the appeal "would cause considerable damage and offer to provide a guarantee and the granting of this conditional effect to the effective deposit the bond within the time allowed".
In other words the appeal does not have a suspensive effect unless not to suspend it would cause considerable damage, in which case the applicant may offer to lodge a guarantee (i.e. hard cash) with the court in lieu. As you said earlier - to make sure they are not mucking about.
For this to apply, Amaral's lawyer would have needed to ask the court to suspend the judgement. It does look from the wordings as though he did not make such a request. Hmmm.
The only part of that which has penetrated (I think) is that apparently the Judgement has not been appealed ... which leaves only the amount of the award to be argued about.
No wonder you are confused!
Right, lets try.
Article 647.
Paragraph 1 applies - no suspensive effect.
Unless
Paragraph two applies - to suspend the judgement (you need to refer to paragraph 4 for this).
Or paragraph three applies - to suspend the judgement due to one or more of specific provisions-
Probably section (d) The order dismissing outright or not to order the injunction;
This needs consideration of paragraph 4 - Where the provisions state that if the judgement is not suspended pending the appeal "would cause considerable damage and offer to provide a guarantee and the granting of this conditional effect to the effective deposit the bond within the time allowed".
In other words the appeal does not have a suspensive effect unless not to suspend it would cause considerable damage, in which case the applicant may offer to lodge a guarantee (i.e. hard cash) with the court in lieu. As you said earlier - to make sure they are not mucking about.
For this to apply, Amaral's lawyer would have needed to ask the court to suspend the judgement. It does look from the wordings as though he did not make such a request. Hmmm.
The only part of that which has penetrated (I think) is that apparently the Judgement has not been appealed ... which leaves only the amount of the award to be argued about.
Sorry - no. The nature of the appeal is unknown.
It appears that the judgement has not been suspended while the appeal is in process.
In practice this means that Amaral cannot publish or sell his book or DVD. The court is already holding the dosh.
Don't think so, Brietta.
You have to have some grounds in order to dispute the amount. How do you do that without disputing either points of fact or law on which the ruling is based?
It is going to be a lot messier than I had thought, Carana, and more time consuming which is a great pity.
I'm just going to watch you and JP discuss what happens when it happens and pick up what is going on from there.
Expect to be asked for clarifications of what is happening because quite simply I haven't a clue about the law. It may be Just but imo it isn't logical.
It is going to be a lot messier than I had thought, Carana, and more time consuming which is a great pity.
I'm just going to watch you and JP discuss what happens when it happens and pick up what is going on from there.
Expect to be asked for clarifications of what is happening because quite simply I haven't a clue about the law. It may be Just but imo it isn't logical.
I'm not a lawyer, btw. I'm just trying to peer into the mysteries of PT law out of curiosity.
There is a logic, but not as we know it.
(Cue Twilight Zone).
Here's a puzzle that took me a while to work out: you could be convicted of murder and be serving a life sentence, yet still be an arguido.
There's a logic.... Seriously.
What's the answer to the puzzle?
An arguido in another unrelated case?
That won't be correct ... it is Anna and Pegasus who solve the puzzles, I'm rubbish at it.
I am going to make a prediction here - a veritable hostage to fortune.
I think it will be quite straightforward and not very messy. I predict that the appeal will agree with the original verdict.
My reasoning? The appeal can only overturn the verdict on the grounds of proven facts or points of law. Assuming that the proven facts are not in dispute (having been covered during the trial) so that leaves points of law. The verdict turned on Amarals requirement to keep his trap shut about cases he was involved in, and in particular not to make accusations about named people involved. And this is pretty much a universal feature of police and judicial services.
The verdict was actually quite balanced - something to the McCanns and bit left over for Amaral's creditiors.
I expect this aspect to be wrapped up by Christmas, and then he can whine about taking the case to the ECHR......
I am going to make a prediction here - a veritable hostage to fortune.
I think it will be quite straightforward and not very messy. I predict that the appeal will agree with the original verdict.
My reasoning? The appeal can only overturn the verdict on the grounds of proven facts or points of law. Assuming that the proven facts are not in dispute (having been covered during the trial) so that leaves points of law. The verdict turned on Amarals requirement to keep his trap shut about cases he was involved in, and in particular not to make accusations about named people involved. And this is pretty much a universal feature of police and judicial services.
The verdict was actually quite balanced - something to the McCanns and bit left over for Amaral's creditiors.
I expect this aspect to be wrapped up by Christmas, and then he can whine about taking the case to the ECHR......
I am going to make a prediction here - a veritable hostage to fortune.IMO it is not impossible that Mr Amaral's opponents will concede before the appeal is decided.
I think it will be quite straightforward and not very messy. I predict that the appeal will agree with the original verdict.
My reasoning? The appeal can only overturn the verdict on the grounds of proven facts or points of law. Assuming that the proven facts are not in dispute (having been covered during the trial) so that leaves points of law. The verdict turned on Amarals requirement to keep his trap shut about cases he was involved in, and in particular not to make accusations about named people involved. And this is pretty much a universal feature of police and judicial services.
The verdict was actually quite balanced - something to the McCanns and bit left over for Amaral's creditiors.
I expect this aspect to be wrapped up by Christmas, and then he can whine about taking the case to the ECHR......
IMO it is not impossible that Mr Amaral's opponents will concede before the appeal is decided.
IMO it is not impossible that Mr Amaral's opponents will concede before the appeal is decided.Concede what??! That they'd made a terrible mistake and that Amaral wasn't a rotter after all?! I don't think so somehow!
Concede what??! That they'd made a terrible mistake and that Amaral wasn't a rotter after all?! I don't think so somehow!A spokesperson recently emphasised the importance of having huge chunks of money ready to immediately finance a private search in case SY fail to solve the case. Every thousand pounds spent on lawyers on this libel case is a thousand pounds less available for that possible future search.
A spokesperson recently emphasised the importance of having huge chunks of money ready to immediately finance a private search in case SY fail to solve the case. Every thousand pounds spent on lawyers on this libel case is a thousand pounds less available for that possible future search.
A spokesperson recently emphasised the importance of having huge chunks of money ready to immediately finance a private search in case SY fail to solve the case. Every thousand pounds spent on lawyers on this libel case is a thousand pounds less available for that possible future search.
It is good to have a contingency plan, but I am hopeful it will not be needed if as seems probable the PJ and SY investigations are bearing fruit. Also any future family search is unlikely to be on the scale of the previous ones.
I think Mr Amaral could have salvaged a measure of dignity by accepting the judgement of the court and concentrating on getting his life back on track by foregoing his right to appeal.
He made more money (if he gets to keep it) in under two years than the average working person would be able to save in a lifetime. All on the back of dismissing a missing child as potentially findable, when he didn't even understand the evidence.
I doubt that he'll give that up without a fight.
A spokesperson recently emphasised the importance of having huge chunks of money ready to immediately finance a private search in case SY fail to solve the case. Every thousand pounds spent on lawyers on this libel case is a thousand pounds less available for that possible future search.Perhaps the McCanns' supporters should start a legal aid fund for them then then.
I am going to make a prediction here - a veritable hostage to fortune.
I think it will be quite straightforward and not very messy. I predict that the appeal will agree with the original verdict.
My reasoning? The appeal can only overturn the verdict on the grounds of proven facts or points of law. Assuming that the proven facts are not in dispute (having been covered during the trial) so that leaves points of law. The verdict turned on Amarals requirement to keep his trap shut about cases he was involved in, and in particular not to make accusations about named people involved. And this is pretty much a universal feature of police and judicial services.
The verdict was actually quite balanced - something to the McCanns and bit left over for Amaral's creditiors.
I expect this aspect to be wrapped up by Christmas, and then he can whine about taking the case to the ECHR......
Perhaps the McCanns' supporters should start a legal aid fund for them then then.There is a difference between donating money to defend people accused in a criminal case (which is the situation RB and others anticipated and offered money for in Sept 2007), and donating money to pay for initiating a libel case and pursuing it for 6 or more years, probably at a cost of hundreds of thousands.
Ok. I think I see your point, even though I don't agree with it.Good post. The dilemma for the directors of MFLNSUL is this: the moment SY opened their investigation, the argument which goes something like "suing Amaral is actually searching, because his book stops people searching" became much less convincing.
Shutting him up may now be less important than it was.
This saga started before the Met had agreed to take a review, let alone open an investigation. Whether the Met decision influenced the PT authorities or not, they reopened the investigation as well.
Prior to the (re)opening of the investigation, the message was that there was no point looking for this missing child. And some people keep regurgitating either his words of (non) wisdom, or PJ leaks during his tenure.
What's a few thousand pounds to take this to its conclusion? Not only for Madeleine, but for others who are influenced by the nonsensical opinions of so-called "experts"?
Good post. The dilemma for the directors of MFLNSUL is this: the moment SY opened their investigation, the argument which goes something like "suing Amaral is actually searching, because his book stops people searching" became much less convincing.Even before that their argument was weak for many reasons why have been gone over before and never possible to substantiate
Good post. The dilemma for the directors of MFLNSUL is this: the moment SY opened their investigation, the argument which goes something like "suing Amaral is actually searching, because his book stops people searching" became much less convincing.
Even before that their argument was weak for many reasons why have been gone over before and never possible to substantiateIMO it could be reasonably justified as "aiding the search" originally.
IMO it could be reasonably justified as "aiding the search" originally.
That's important because search is one of the fund's two stated objects.
IMO that justification became a bit weaker when SY formally opened their full investigation.
And then I imagine 2nd Sept 2015 may have been a convenient waypoint at which to cautiously reconsider this question - Can contesting the appeal be reasonably considered to be aiding the search?
Suing Amaral IMO never "aided the search", it can be argued it hindered it
Amaral didn't harm the search, the judge said so. He didn't libel the children, the judge said so. He 'damaged' the McCanns, that's what the judge found. Now that the clause of 'supporting the family' is no longer one of the Fund's aims, I would think paying any money out to lawyers or the courts for this case would be hard to justify.
I think the judge concluded that a sufficient causal link between harm to the search and Amaral's spoutings (in book, video and interviews) had not been demonstrated.
Vastly different from the (bogus) claim that harm to the search had been "disproved".
The onus was upon those claiming that Amaral's views harmed the search to prove it. They couldn't. That makes it an unsupported allegation. As they can't prove that the search was harmed, they can't use that as a reason for spending Fund money on the appeal.
The onus was upon those claiming that Amaral's views harmed the search to prove it. They couldn't. That makes it an unsupported allegation. As they can't prove that the search was harmed, they can't use that as a reason for spending Fund money on the appeal.
Some things ought to be so self-evident, they shouldn't stand in need of proof.
How can someone (the former lead detective in the shelved investigation) write a book, sold in droves across countries of Europe, saying theMcCannsdunit,cocealedacrime,andlauchedafraudulent'appeal'intheirdeaddaughter'sname and that not harm the search for Madeleine?
As it stands, I am slow to be critical of the learned Portuguese judge, because I think she set the tenor of her judgment so as to make it difficult for Amaral to sustain an appeal.
If that's right, then I applaud that ....
they can...and they have...amaral seems to think the judge was wrong on other issues so was the judge right re the search
The onus was upon those claiming that Amaral's views harmed the search to prove it. They couldn't. That makes it an unsupported allegation. As they can't prove that the search was harmed, they can't use that as a reason for spending Fund money on the appeal.
I don't know how they could say that an ex police officer in charge of the disappearance of Madeleine who wrote a book saying that Madeleine was dead that the McCann's had faked an abduction and hidden her body, didn't harm the search for Madeleine.
How many people would think 'well that's it, Madeleine's dead, it couldn't have been her I saw' and didn't report what they may or might have seen?
The fact that they couldn't PROVE it is another matter, how can you prove something like that?
I don't know how they could say that an ex police officer in charge of the disappearance of Madeleine who wrote a book saying that Madeleine was dead that the McCann's had faked an abduction and hidden her body, didn't harm the search for Madeleine.
How many people would think 'well that's it, Madeleine's dead, it couldn't have been her I saw' and didn't report what they may or might have seen?
The fact that they couldn't PROVE it is another matter, how can you prove something like that?
Some things ought to be so self-evident, they shouldn't stand in need of proof.
How can someone (the former lead detective in the shelved investigation) write a book, sold in droves across countries of Europe, saying theMcCannsdunit,cocealedacrime,andlauchedafraudulent'appeal'intheirdeaddaughter'sname and that not harm the search for Madeleine?
As it stands, I am slow to be critical of the learned Portuguese judge, because I think she set the tenor of her judgment so as to make it difficult for Amaral to sustain an appeal.
If that's right, then I applaud that ....
I was hunting for something different, but I came across this again (undated, so I'm not sure if it's the latest).
Penal code.
It concerns someone who discovers and reveals confidential information as a result of their professional work, and it's aggravated if it's used in exchange for a reward or enrichment.
ARTIGO 195.º
(Violação de segredo)
Quem, sem consentimento, revelar segredo alheio de que tenha tomado conhecimento em razão do seu estado, ofício, emprego, profissão ou arte é punido com pena de prisão até 1 ano ou com pena de multa até 240 dias.
ARTIGO 197.º
(Agravação)
As penas previstas nos artigos 190.º a 195.º são elevadas de um terço nos seus limites mínimo e máximo se o facto for praticado:
a) Para obter recompensa ou enriquecimento, para o agente ou para outra pessoa, ou para causar prejuízo a outra pessoa ou ao Estado; ou
b) Através de meio de comunicação social.
I thought the original injunction judgement was quite well thought out and balanced, but then compare that to the Supreme Court ruling...
I thought the original injunction judgement was quite well thought out and balanced, but then compare that to the Supreme Court ruling...
What does using the means of social communication mean? Is that reference to the internet or can it be taken as TV and radio?
It's normally translated as media, in context, meaning traditional media. Some of these laws may predate the recent concept of "social media", so I'm not sure about that.
http://www.linguee.com/english-portuguese/search?query=meio+de+comunica%C3%A7%C3%A3o+social
Thanks Carana ... however if that link to the penal code is applicable to him and my reading of it says it well may be, it is probably a good idea for him to try to keep the appeal process going for a few years to postpone the severe penalties of disseminating confidential information gained in his position as a public servant.
I was reading Amaral's Nova Gente interview again.
It certainly gives an indication as to what his appeal arguments are likely to be.
In his view:
- He wasn't being tried for the crime of defamation, but for an offence of opinion.
- There is no direct link between his book / documentary and any damage to the McCanns.
- He merely reported the "truth".
- No duty of confidentiality should negate his right to freedom of expression to defend his good name and professional dignity against defamation and injustice.
http://pjga.blogspot.com/2015/05/nova-gente-interview-with-goncalo-amaral_15.html
Interesting take ....
CdaM tried that in the Murat case, but the appeal judges didn't agree.
The advantage the McCanns have over Murat is that Murat couldn't disprove the allegation against him by the paper.
The McCanns have been able to disprove, at least a very large number, of specific allegations against them.
But that would be an issue in a UK court (if ever such a case would have even got that far), not necessarily in PT. And the judge didn't want to even want to know about dogs, DNA or anything else. Not her remit.
That's the issue all over the world where there are libel laws.
Only difference is where burden of proof lies.
No point in libel laws otherwise.
The burden of proof is part of the issue, but not the only one. And it doesn't relate to proving whether x, y, or z detail was materially true or not, but the damage caused by an ex-police officer who promoted his interpretation of selected details in the files as being the "truth", particularly at a time when a more balanced view by the prosecutor, who had reviewed all the files available had come to a much more nuanced conclusion, and the fact that by insisting on his view was denying the McCanns their right to the presumption of innocence in the criminal activities that he continually attributes to them.
I still have trouble accepting the idea that he hasn't at least contributed to damaging the search for the most important person in this case... I wonder if that could be an issue considered by the appeal judges or not.
Provided someone can prove beyond doubt she was alive at the time of the books publication and thereafter I guess.
Why would anyone have to prove beyond doubt that she was alive at the time of the book's publication?
There was no evidence that she'd died. It's not even as if she'd disappeared in a plane crash in an ocean.
Even if she had died, who would call in with concerns about Uncle Peter/ Pieter/ Pedro's strange behaviour or odd items found in his home if it were assumed that the parents had disposed of her?
Thanks Carana ... however if that link to the penal code is applicable to him and my reading of it says it well may be, it is probably a good idea for him to try to keep the appeal process going for a few years to postpone the severe penalties of disseminating confidential information gained in his position as a public servant.
his book was published after the files were released so how could he be responsible for disseminating confidentialinformation it's a an oxymoron at best and further confirmed by the vexatious complaint by the Duarte woman which got thrown out of court..nice try though
his book was published after the files were released so how could he be responsible for disseminating confidentialinformation it's a an oxymoron at best and further confirmed by the vexatious complaint by the Duarte woman which got thrown out of court..nice try though
I would have thought the Portuguese judiciary would take note of wording in the archiving process in this respect. With the case archived there is no one looking anyway in any official capacity. So you are faced with proving there was a coordinated "unofficial" search which was impeded by the book content.
OK, I see your idea.
What we don't know is how viable any of the leads that landed on desk officer Paiva's desk actually were. No doubt a number of them would have been of the nutty variety, but what effort was put into any plausible ones?
If potentially serious leads had been ignored or had just involved getting a GNR officer to pop over to see if there was any "sign of the minor", it would still be difficult to attribute inaction to the book as Paiva shared Amaral's theory anyway.
If some of those leads came in from the public, then not everyone believed that she was dead, but a number would have come in from the PIs, and no one will ever know how many more might have come in. Some of the potentially-linked assault cases only came to light as a result of the Crimewatch appeal.
Perhaps you should learn to realize people came to the conclusion Madeleine was dead without the influence Paiva or Amaral.
If some want to believe she was and is still alive, so be it.
However, not one sighting , or one lead has led anywhere.
As to your 'might have come in', that is speculation and no more than that.
The same with other people who are missing,but presumed dead, I suppose.
Indeed.
I wonder if some people still believe Lord Lucan is still alive ?
Time will tell.
Carana, do you think this case will ever be solved ?
It would be interesting to get a coherent reply from mccann supporters who believe that Madeleine is alive, that after 8 plus years of unparalleled publicity this case has received, where she would be.
Indeed.
I wonder if some people still believe Lord Lucan is still alive ?
The same with other people who are missing,but presumed dead, I suppose.
his book was published after the files were released so how could he be responsible for disseminating confidentialinformation it's a an oxymoron at best and further confirmed by the vexatious complaint by the Duarte woman which got thrown out of court..nice try though
It does seem a fine line the judge is drawing here. Because the book was published just three days after the PJ Files were released, the judge decided the information was confidential when Amaral used it to write his book. Clearly that's true.
The question then is can a policeman use confidential information gained through his job to write something down which he keeps to himself? If no-one knows what he's written then I guess he can do that because no-one knows. If the PJ Files hadn't been released and Amaral as a result hadn't published his book no-one would have known what was in it.
So Amaral did use confidential information to write the book, but it wasn't confidential when he published the book. A fine line.
When he left, he must have taken documents with him, or arranged to get hold of a copy. While quite possibly against police rules, if he kept them under lock and key while he wrote his draft, then presumably that wouldn't be a breach of secrecy as such.
There was most definitely a breach of secrecy, however. It's impossible to have a book edited, proof-read, police photos photoshopped, the contents laid out, printed and on the shelves in three days.
If I was given to speculation I might think the PJ, having taken so much flack from the media, co-operated with Amaral so he could write the book. Perhaps that would explain why no action was taken against Amaral by them. Are you suggesting that police photos used in the book were manipulated to show something they didn't show originally?
I don't know how long it takes for the steps you have outlined, but an author can get a contract with a publisher based on a proposal and a few sample pages for a work of non-fiction. A non-fiction book can be written after the contract is signed. The next step is copy-editing (finding and correcting typos, etc.) I suppose it's possible that could be done in a day if Amaral worked alongside the copy editor. Printing on the second day and delivery overnight to the bookshops. All ready for launch on third day. I'm not saying it happened like that, but can anyone prove it didn't?
http://blog.nathanbransford.com/2009/08/how-book-gets-published.html
If I was given to speculation I might think the PJ, having taken so much flack from the media, co-operated with Amaral so he could write the book. Perhaps that would explain why no action was taken against Amaral by them. Are you suggesting that police photos used in the book were manipulated to show something they didn't show originally?
I don't know how long it takes for the steps you have outlined, but an author can get a contract with a publisher based on a proposal and a few sample pages for a work of non-fiction. A non-fiction book can be written after the contract is signed. The next step is copy-editing (finding and correcting typos, etc.) I suppose it's possible that could be done in a day if Amaral worked alongside the copy editor. Printing on the second day and delivery overnight to the bookshops. All ready for launch on third day. I'm not saying it happened like that, but can anyone prove it didn't?
http://blog.nathanbransford.com/2009/08/how-book-gets-published.html
Erm, there is no way that a book can go from a vague draft to on the shelves in three days.
No, the illustrations of police file photos would have been rendered via the use of a photoshop filter to convey an "artist's impression", to avoid the "reproduction prohibited" issue.
Still waiting to hear some logical possibilities of Madeleine's whereabouts, if she was alive. &%+((£
why should anyone wish to play your game of speculation...totally pointlessAt least we don't need to speculate about whether Mr Amaral's supporters will provide sufficient funds to pay his lawyer.
At least we don't need to speculate about whether Mr Amaral's supporters will provide sufficient funds to pay his lawyer.
Which would that be, Pegasus, past or present ... even those who may be future and not out of law school yet.
Which would that be, Pegasus, past or present ... even those who may be future and not out of law school yet.Good point. And what about paying lawyers who are still in nappies.
@)(++(*
At least we don't need to speculate about whether Mr Amaral's supporters will provide sufficient funds to pay his lawyer.
I am intrigued as to why you seem to be so obsessed with commenting on his fund. Yes he may have sufficient funds to pay his lawyer.I guess the point is that Amaral is hugely popular with a large and devoted following ready to support him in any and every way, or something. Just don't ask why this popularity isn't so evident in his native country.
And your point is?
I guess the point is that Amaral is hugely popular with a large and devoted following ready to support him in any and every way, or something. Just don't ask why this popularity isn't so evident in his native country.Which is greater do you think? Donations from Portuguese public to PJGA, or donations from UK public to MF?
Which is greater do you think? Donations from Portuguese public to PJGA, or donations from UK public to MF?
Which is greater do you think? Donations from Portuguese public to PJGA, or donations from UK public to MF?without subjecting the Fund to forensic analysis I'm unable to state for certain but from what I have seen of the donors and comments left most of them seem to be from non-PT nationals.
Depends how you define greater?
Do you mean which is financially higher?
Or do you mean which is more noble?
Which is greater do you think? Donations from Portuguese public to PJGA, or donations from UK public to MF?
There is no need for donations to the FMF at present as the police are actively investigating.
Amaral, on the other hand, needs far more money than his supporters will ever donate to get out of his self-inflicted financial mess.
There is no need for donations to the FMF at present as the police are actively investigating.Mr Mitchell on Sept 2nd clearly explained the need to have huge amounts of money ready now to finance the future search. So I think the fund would disagree that there is no need for donations - and this is proven by the fact their donation page is open today - how can they have money ready for the future search if no-one donates?
Amaral, on the other hand, needs far more money than his supporters will ever donate to get out of his self-inflicted financial mess.
The judge declined to find it 'proved' that a book accusing them of knowing Madeleine was dead, causing her death, covering up the "fact" of her death and fabricating an "abduction" didn't harm the search for Madeleine.
Even the judge didn't get everything right.
But I think she might well have couched her judgment so as to make it difficult for Amaral to sustain an appeal.
I would applaud that if so.
The judge declined to find it 'proved' that a book accusing them of knowing Madeleine was dead, causing her death, covering up the "fact" of her death and fabricating an "abduction" didn't harm the search for Madeleine.
Even the judge didn't get everything right.
But I think she might well have couched her judgment so as to make it difficult for Amaral to sustain an appeal.
I would applaud that if so.
The judge declined to find it 'proved' that a book accusing them of knowing Madeleine was dead, causing her death, covering up the "fact" of her death and fabricating an "abduction" didn't harm the search for Madeleine.
Even the judge didn't get everything right.
But I think she might well have couched her judgment so as to make it difficult for Amaral to sustain an appeal.
I would applaud that if so.
Simply amazing to see that the fund is now at £ 47.000,00!!! Two donations of £ 4.000,00 each were made this morning.
The comment for the first donation is as follows:
De um grupo anónimo de funcionários de empresas e do meio legal que estão estupefactos com o que aconteceu. Portugal e a Grã-Bretanha são velhos aliados, mas os McCann e os tablóides britânicos tentaram separar-nos. Todos vemos perfeitamente aquilo que estão a tentar fazer, congelando os bens do Dr Amaral para o impedir de se defender, enquanto usam os milhões que lhes foram doados pelo público para o processar. Isto não é justiça. Isto está errado. Os McCann perderam 5 das suas 7 pretensões, mas a imprensa britânica não o reportou, nem tão-pouco reportou as palavras duras utilizadas pela juíza em relação às suas supostas 'provas'. Têm de pagar 60% das custas, mas a imprensa britânica não o reportou. Esta pequena doação destina-se a assegurar que este venenoso acto de ódio não seja bem sucedido. Acreditamos que um dia a verdade será contada, embora seja improvável que sejam os pais a fazê-lo.
Translation:
From a group of company workers and of the legal system who are stupefied with what has happened. Portugal and Great Britain are old allies, but the McCanns and the British tabloids have tried to separate us. We all see perfectly what they are trying to do, freezing Dr. Amaral's assets in order to keep him from defending himself, while they use the millions that were donated by the public to sue him. This is not justice. This is wrong. The McCanns lost 5 of their 7 claims, but the British press hasn't reported it, neither did they report the harsh words used by the judge in relation to their presumed "proof". They must pay 60% of the costs, but the British press has not reported it. This small donation is to ensure that this venomous act of hate will not succeed. We believe that one day the truth will be told, although it will be improbable that it will be the parents who will do it.
you are absolutely right...by allowing only the veru strong points which may be impossible to successfully appeal the judge has made amaral's appeal very difficult....what a smart move
The judge wasn't that smart. According to many people in the legal system, her points are quite easy to appeal. Let's just wait and see.
The judge wasn't that smart. According to many people in the legal system, her points are quite easy to appeal. Let's just wait and see.Who are these people and where can we read their reasons for believing the appeal will be an easy ride?
Who, exactly, are these people, and where are their quotes?Snap! 8((()*/
Simply amazing to see that the fund is now at £ 47.000,00!!! Two donations of £ 4.000,00 each were made this morning.
The comment for the first donation is as follows:
De um grupo anónimo de funcionários de empresas e do meio legal que estão estupefactos com o que aconteceu. Portugal e a Grã-Bretanha são velhos aliados, mas os McCann e os tablóides britânicos tentaram separar-nos. Todos vemos perfeitamente aquilo que estão a tentar fazer, congelando os bens do Dr Amaral para o impedir de se defender, enquanto usam os milhões que lhes foram doados pelo público para o processar. Isto não é justiça. Isto está errado. Os McCann perderam 5 das suas 7 pretensões, mas a imprensa britânica não o reportou, nem tão-pouco reportou as palavras duras utilizadas pela juíza em relação às suas supostas 'provas'. Têm de pagar 60% das custas, mas a imprensa britânica não o reportou. Esta pequena doação destina-se a assegurar que este venenoso acto de ódio não seja bem sucedido. Acreditamos que um dia a verdade será contada, embora seja improvável que sejam os pais a fazê-lo.
Translation:
From a group of company workers and of the legal system who are stupefied with what has happened. Portugal and Great Britain are old allies, but the McCanns and the British tabloids have tried to separate us. We all see perfectly what they are trying to do, freezing Dr. Amaral's assets in order to keep him from defending himself, while they use the millions that were donated by the public to sue him. This is not justice. This is wrong. The McCanns lost 5 of their 7 claims, but the British press hasn't reported it, neither did they report the harsh words used by the judge in relation to their presumed "proof". They must pay 60% of the costs, but the British press has not reported it. This small donation is to ensure that this venomous act of hate will not succeed. We believe that one day the truth will be told, although it will be improbable that it will be the parents who will do it.
Some people's stupidity is simply mind-blowing ....
You mean like supporting parents who repeatedly left their children in danger ?
Some people's stupidity is simply mind-blowing ....@)(++(* this is either an act of utter delusion or sly deceit, it's hard to decide which.
Soooo, it had been noted that donations to the fund recently had slowed to a trickle, there had been some eyebrows raised here and elsewhere at the lack of homegrown PT support for Amaral's fund, then - low and behold - two massive donations, allegedly from a bunch of (anonymous) PT nationals.
I smell a great big rat....
@)(++(* this is either an act of utter delusion or sly deceit, it's hard to decide which.Yes that's the answer - in order to deceive people into thinking someone has donated £8K, a deluded person has donated £8K. A cunning plan if ever there was one.
Soooo, it had been noted that donations to the fund recently had slowed to a trickle, there had been some eyebrows raised here and elsewhere at the lack of homegrown PT support for Amaral's fund, then - low and behold - two massive donations, allegedly from a bunch of (anonymous) PT nationals.
I smell a great big rat....
I think they need lots of support...but there again I'm a decent human being
It's interesting.
They've got £47,000
If Amaral's lawyer charges £200 an hour £40,000 would buy 200 hours of his time (roughly 8 24-hour days).
How much time is needed to prepare a defence that consists of: the McCanns should have got less than they got cos they weren't with Madeleine when she was abducted?
What you should say is eyebrows raised by mccann supporters.
So how are donations to the mccann fund doing these days ?
The judge wasn't that smart. According to many people in the legal system, her points are quite easy to appeal. Let's just wait and see.
Yes that's the answer - in order to deceive people into thinking someone has donated £8K, a deluded person has donated £8K. A cunning plan if ever there was one.It's not very cunning, most people with sense can see through it. You withdraw money from the fund you control and then you channel it back into the fund again - recycling donations to make it look like you have more support than you actually do.
Madeleine's Fund is dedicated to looking for Madeleine ... remember her? the missing child.
At the moment there is no requirement for her parents to raise money for that ... as the people who have the legal right and the legal powers to do that are currently so doing.
Why do you persist in asking such an unnecessary question ... what point are you trying to make?
Do you have any idea what is in Gonçalo Amaral's appeal? Why do you assume that he is only contesting the amount awarded?
It's interesting.Why aren't these professional lawyer types who support Ammy giving him their time for free rather than coughing up £8k to pay some other lawyer type...?
They've got £47,000
If Amaral's lawyer charges £200 an hour £40,000 would buy 200 hours of his time (roughly 8 24-hour days).
How much time is needed to prepare a defence that consists of: the McCanns should have got less than they got cos they weren't with Madeleine when she was abducted?
Yes that's the answer - in order to deceive people into thinking someone has donated £8K, a deluded person has donated £8K. A cunning plan if ever there was one.
Madeleine's Fund is dedicated to looking for Madeleine ... remember her? the missing child.
At the moment there is no requirement for her parents to raise money for that ... as the people who have the legal right and the legal powers to do that are currently so doing.
Why do you persist in asking such an unnecessary question ... what point are you trying to make?
June 11 ....And I am sure nobody will have any objection if the gofundme total raised increases to £40K ...(snip)Tick.
Quite a strange post when talking about the trial, thinking about the funding of the McCann's legal costs?
Whose actions resulted in her going missing ?
and trying giving an accurate answer, since the cause of her 'disappearance' remains unresolved no matter how many times you cry abduction.
Why aren't these professional lawyer types who support Ammy giving him their time for free rather than coughing up £8k to pay some other lawyer type...?
Are you yet again ignoring the criminal actions of the person who abducted Madeleine McCann in your eagerness to castigate her parents?
It is attitudes such as that which have led to Mr Amaral's current appeal against his failed defence of the libels perpetrated against the Drs McCann ... after the long legal route to this point.
Simply amazing to see that the fund is now at £ 47.000,00!!! Two donations of £ 4.000,00 each were made this morning.
The comment for the first donation is as follows:
De um grupo anónimo de funcionários de empresas e do meio legal que estão estupefactos com o que aconteceu. Portugal e a Grã-Bretanha são velhos aliados, mas os McCann e os tablóides britânicos tentaram separar-nos. Todos vemos perfeitamente aquilo que estão a tentar fazer, congelando os bens do Dr Amaral para o impedir de se defender, enquanto usam os milhões que lhes foram doados pelo público para o processar. Isto não é justiça. Isto está errado. Os McCann perderam 5 das suas 7 pretensões, mas a imprensa britânica não o reportou, nem tão-pouco reportou as palavras duras utilizadas pela juíza em relação às suas supostas 'provas'. Têm de pagar 60% das custas, mas a imprensa britânica não o reportou. Esta pequena doação destina-se a assegurar que este venenoso acto de ódio não seja bem sucedido. Acreditamos que um dia a verdade será contada, embora seja improvável que sejam os pais a fazê-lo.
Translation:
From a group of company workers and of the legal system who are stupefied with what has happened. Portugal and Great Britain are old allies, but the McCanns and the British tabloids have tried to separate us. We all see perfectly what they are trying to do, freezing Dr. Amaral's assets in order to keep him from defending himself, while they use the millions that were donated by the public to sue him. This is not justice. This is wrong. The McCanns lost 5 of their 7 claims, but the British press hasn't reported it, neither did they report the harsh words used by the judge in relation to their presumed "proof". They must pay 60% of the costs, but the British press has not reported it. This small donation is to ensure that this venomous act of hate will not succeed. We believe that one day the truth will be told, although it will be improbable that it will be the parents who will do it.
Quite a strange post when talking about the trial, thinking about the funding of the McCann's legal costs?
the McCanns have put a lot of money themselves into the fund...enough to cover the legal cost several times over. Wasn't their latest payment from the Times given straight to charity
The strange post is not mine but the one to which I am responding ... which raised the subject of Madeleine's fund which you may note from my response I mention nothing in relation to legal costs but only the costs of looking for Madeleine.
Why have you put the interpretation on it that it is in reference to her parents' legal costs?
Why aren't these professional lawyer types who support Ammy giving him their time for free rather than coughing up £8k to pay some other lawyer type...?Because it is more effective to use the best lawyer for the job.
Do you have any idea what is in Gonçalo Amaral's appeal? Why do you assume that he is only contesting the amount awarded?
Once it is in the fund, it isn't their money.
Because it is more effective to use the best lawyer for the job.Has Amaral got the best lawyer? He's certainly got though a few of them in his time. And - ever heard of "pro bono"? If Amaral is destitute, but with masses of support from the legal community and a dead cert to win his appeal, I would have thought they'd be queuing up round the block to help him for free.
Also because people work more efficiently if they don't have to live on nothing while they are doing it.
This is why you will find that all the law firms and the PR individual and companies used by the other side are paid.
Madeleine's Fund is dedicated to looking for Madeleine ... remember her? the missing child.MFLNSU Ltd is dedicated to looking for Madeleine AND ensuring any perp is caught
At the moment there is no requirement for her parents to raise money for that ... as the people who have the legal right and the legal powers to do that are currently so doing.
Why do you persist in asking such an unnecessary question ... what point are you trying to make?
Maybe something to do with the thread title and you stating the reason behind MF.
Yet despite that knowledge they chose to direct the profits from a best seller ... not into their private accounts as they were entitled to do ... but into Madeleine's Fund.Yes and that choice was put in black and white on page 393 of the book.
Moneys awarded from litigation both to them and their friends was paid into Madeleine's Fund.
That they were able to donate the damages awarded to them for the libel perpetrated by the Sunday Times to two charities was only because at long last Madeleine's case had been officially reopened.
They did not have to do that ... but the money was theirs to do with as they wished ... and that was how they chose to use it.
MFLNSU Ltd is dedicated to looking for Madeleine AND ensuring any perp is caught
(there used to be a 3rd aim but that was removed years ago)
Mr Mitchell's statement on 2nd Sept 2015 makes it clear IMO that donations to MF are as important now as they ever have been.
Soooo, it had been noted that donations to the fund recently had slowed to a trickle, there had been some eyebrows raised here and elsewhere at the lack of homegrown PT support for Amaral's fund, then - low and behold - two massive donations, allegedly from a bunch of (anonymous) PT nationals.
I smell a great big rat....
Has Amaral got the best lawyer? He's certainly got though a few of them in his time. And - ever heard of "pro bono"? If Amaral is destitute, but with masses of support from the legal community and a dead cert to win his appeal, I would have thought they'd be queuing up round the block to help him for free.
What are you suggesting, Alfred?
I am sure these donations are absolutely genuine and above board. And I am equally certain that when the independently audited accounts of the Amaral fund are released this will show that all the figures tie up between Amaral's fund, Go Fund Me and the legal costs, and there is no evidence of any recycling of donations.
May I also commend the two donors for having managed to make their Portuguese donations equal exactly £4000 - but why oh why donate via the GoFundMe site. The cost of doing so is at least £400 - (5%) and if the money was collected in euros and converted to GBP, there would be an exchange rate cost typically of 1% to 2%. (an extra £80 to £160).
Whereas if they had simply made the donation directly via the BPI - Banco Português de Investimento, Sete Rios, Lisboa, there would have been no charge and no exchange costs and Amaral could have been £500 quid better off.
I am sure there is a simple explanation for this.
What are you suggesting, Alfred?I'm sure you're right J-P, nice one.
I am sure these donations are absolutely genuine and above board. And I am equally certain that when the independently audited accounts of the Amaral fund are released this will show that all the figures tie up between Amaral's fund, Go Fund Me and the legal costs, and there is no evidence of any recycling of donations.
May I also commend the two donors for having managed to make their Portuguese donations equal exactly £4000 - but why oh why donate via the GoFundMe site. The cost of doing so is at least £400 - (5%) and if the money was collected in euros and converted to GBP, there would be an exchange rate cost typically of 1% to 2%. (an extra £80 to £160).
Whereas if they had simply made the donation directly via the BPI - Banco Português de Investimento, Sete Rios, Lisboa, there would have been no charge and no exchange costs and Amaral could have been £500 quid better off.
I am sure there is a simple explanation for this.
What are you suggesting, Alfred?
I am sure these donations are absolutely genuine and above board. And I am equally certain that when the independently audited accounts of the Amaral fund are released this will show that all the figures tie up between Amaral's fund, Go Fund Me and the legal costs, and there is no evidence of any recycling of donations.
May I also commend the two donors for having managed to make their Portuguese donations equal exactly £4000 - but why oh why donate via the GoFundMe site. The cost of doing so is at least £400 - (5%) and if the money was collected in euros and converted to GBP, there would be an exchange rate cost typically of 1% to 2%. (an extra £80 to £160).
Whereas if they had simply made the donation directly via the BPI - Banco Português de Investimento, Sete Rios, Lisboa, there would have been no charge and no exchange costs and Amaral could have been £500 quid better off.
I am sure there is a simple explanation for this.
https://www.gofundme.com/Legal-DefencePJGA
http://portugalresident.com/appeal-to-raise-money-for-maddie-cop%E2%80%99s-legal-costs-gets-huge-cash-boost
(https://pbs.twimg.com/media/CPflKe5WsAAZZdV.jpg)
An anonymous group of employees of companies and legal means that are stunned by what happened. Portugal and Britain are old allies, but the McCanns and the British tabloids tried to separate us. All see perfectly what we are trying to do, freezing the assets of Dr Amaral to prevent him from defending himself, while using the millions they have been donated by the public to the process. This is not justice. This is wrong. The McCanns have lost 5 of their 7 pretensions, but the British press not reported, nor even reported the harsh words used by the judge in relation to his alleged 'evidence'. They have to pay 60% of costs, but the British press not reported. This small donation is intended to ensure that this venomous hatred act is not successful. We believe that one day the truth will be told, although it is unlikely to be parents to do so.
Brilliant ... when I'm making a charitable donation I like to ensure all the money is going where it should and not to a third party which is why I make a Gift Aid Declaration ... in this case, were I Portuguese living and working in Portugal, I would have paid it into the Portuguese bank account set up for that reason.
Seems legal workers in Portugal may have more money than sense in some cases and certainly no accountants within their ranks ... not to worry though ... it will all soon come out in the wash.
Brilliant ... when I'm making a charitable donation I like to ensure all the money is going where it should and not to a third party which is why I make a Gift Aid Declaration ... in this case, were I Portuguese living and working in Portugal, I would have paid it into the Portuguese bank account set up for that reason.
Seems legal workers in Portugal may have more money than sense in some cases and certainly no accountants within their ranks ... not to worry though ... it will all soon come out in the wash.
why have they chosen to stay anonymous...something not right
I don't understand the bit in bold and I most probably have misinterpreted it.
"There is no court date"? Does anyone know if this mean that there will be no public court case for the appeal, or lawyers required in court in the appeal or will it be a private hearing(s) ?
Is it just a matter of waiting for a decision from the ruling judges after they have investigated the ruling that awarded damages to the McCanns and compare arguments/ evidence?
Excerpt:-
As to the former PJ detective’s appeal against the ruling that effectively orders him to pay the McCann’s over €600,000 in damages, that is advancing now through the Appellate Court in Lisbon.
As a friend of the former detective’s explained, “it is not a public process. There is no court date.
“At some point, the judges reach a verdict and then they communicate that verdict to all parties. There is however no deadline. It may take weeks or months until we hear anything”.
natasha.donn@algarveresident.com
http://portugalresident.com/appeal-to-raise-money-for-maddie-cop%E2%80%99s-legal-costs-gets-huge-cash-boost
Madeleine's Fund is dedicated to looking for Madeleine ... remember her? the missing child.
At the moment there is no requirement for her parents to raise money for that ... as the people who have the legal right and the legal powers to do that are currently so doing.
Why do you persist in asking such an unnecessary question ... what point are you trying to make?
I'm not sure how a civil appeal hearing works in PT. It might just be judges sitting over coffee and laptops with either lawyers present or available when they find a time slot.
I have no problem that this young English woman started an initiative to support someone she seems to admire... And everyone should be free to support whatever cause is close to their heart with their spare cash, but why didn't she simply promote the original fund via her social media contacts?Calculate MF's website costs in their first accounting year, as a percentage of MF's online donations, and you will find that gofundme's 5% fee is very reasonable in comparision.
ETA: as J-P says, I'm sure there will be a simple explanation, but for the moment I don't quite understand it.
With lots of contributors donating £5 whenever they can afford it, is there any particular reason to give a percentage of that as a fee to gofundme as opposed to a direct transfer to the PT account?
Yep, got to be Brits doing this. Two donations of 4,000 Pounds each within ten minutes?
But I really don't mind. It won't affect the ultimate outcome.
Or Yanks who've been scamming it all along. A wise man once told me to never believe everything you read or see on the internet.Or even Yanks with Portuguese backgrounds...?
I responded to a post.
I would be very much obliged if you would refrain from putting words into my mouth or into my posts which were not there in the first instance ... or could even be loosely assumed to be my intended meaning.
Do you do this with other posters or am I uniquely in your sights?
Agreed that at the moment the discussion is the opaque and unaudited Amaral Fund for his appeal against the Portuguese judge's ruling against him.
The transparent and audited Madeleine Fund season really doesn't begin until December through to early January ... however I don't see that particular post you have picked on as making any connection with the Drs McCann legal costs and fail to see how you make that connection.
Yep, got to be Brits doing this. Two donations of 4,000 Pounds each within ten minutes?But Eleanor all donations at UK gofundme are accounted for in Pounds, even if the donor has a Euro bank account.
But I really don't mind. It won't affect the ultimate outcome.
Or Yan.ks who've been scamming it all along. A wise man once told me to never believe everything you read or see on the internet.
But Eleanor all donations at UK gofundme are accounted for in Pounds, even if the donor has a Euro bank account.
And the fact that both donations are round numbers in Pounds may have the following explanation...
The max donation at US gofundme is IMO$50K, but what is the max donation at UK gofundme? Could it be £4K? That might explain the donation being split into two parts
... and might even indicate that this fundraising effort by the "Anônimo" group of people in Portugal is ongoing and there is more to come?
It could be so. But why not to have done it sooner and individually? Eight thousand Quid at the same time is a little hard to swallow.
Calculate MF's website costs in their first accounting year, as a percentage of MF's online donations, and you will find that gofundme's 5% fee is very reasonable in comparision.
If the donor has a euro bank account, then why use a site denominated in £ - with two sets of conversions costs. And why use the GoFundMe site instead of just making a contribution to the Lisbon bank account?
Unless they like the GoFundMe site so much they wanted to make a present of £400?
Maybe the donors didn't realise there was a charge.
Who cares anyway?
Has Amaral got the best lawyer? He's certainly got though a few of them in his time. And - ever heard of "pro bono"? If Amaral is destitute, but with masses of support from the legal community and a dead cert to win his appeal, I would have thought they'd be queuing up round the block to help him for free.
Is that why Isobel Duarte is acting in a pro bono capacity for the McCanns ?
why have they chosen to stay anonymous...something not right
Is that why Isobel Duarte is acting in a pro bono capacity for the McCanns ?
Because they don't fancy having Sky News camping on their doorstep?Why would they do that? They weren't abusive trolls as well were they? Sky has shown no interest in Gonc's fund as far as I'm aware...
Is that why Isobel Duarte is acting in a pro bono capacity for the McCanns ?I wasn't aware that she was - anyway, are you implying that (like Amaral) the McCanns are destitute?
Why would they do that? They weren't abusive trolls as well were they? Sky has shown no interest in Gonc's fund as far as I'm aware...
There's no doubt at least two of their TV faces are very much interested in all aspects of the case. Very wise to be anonymous imo.That's just paranoid. I haven't seen Sky doorsteppping any of the other fund donors who are not anonymous, have you?
That's just paranoid. I haven't seen Sky doorsteppping any of the other fund donors who are not anonymous, have you?
That's just paranoid. I haven't seen Sky doorsteppping any of the other fund donors who are not anonymous, have you?
If the donor has a euro bank account, then why use a site denominated in £ - with two sets of conversions costs. And why use the GoFundMe site instead of just making a contribution to the Lisbon bank account?By donating £8000 to the Gofundme site instead of the PJGA site they have paid a 5% fee of about £400 but the added impact of their donation being publicised on Gofundme will within just a few days inspire extra donations from others which will total much more than £400. So it is a canny move.
Unless they like the GoFundMe site so much they wanted to make a present of £400?
the McCanns have put a lot of money themselves into the fund...enough to cover the legal cost several times over. Wasn't their latest payment from the Times given straight to charity
By donating £8000 to the Gofundme site instead of the PJGA site they have paid a 5% fee of about £400 but the added impact of their donation being publicised on Gofundme will within just a few days inspire extra donations from others which will total much more than £400. So it is a canny move.
By donating £8000 to the Gofundme site instead of the PJGA site they have paid a 5% fee of about £400 but the added impact of their donation being publicised on Gofundme will within just a few days inspire extra donations from others which will total much more than £400. So it is a canny move.
Because they don't fancy having Sky News camping on their doorstep?
By donating £8000 to the Gofundme site instead of the PJGA site they have paid a 5% fee of about £400 but the added impact of their donation being publicised on Gofundme will within just a few days inspire extra donations from others which will total much more than £400. So it is a canny move.
I gathered that.
But why not promote his PJGA fund instead in the first place? How many of his PT fan club glued to Dear Julia's matinée TV show understand English? And what would be the point of getting them to go via a UK site to redirect their spare cash back to PT?
What makes you think they are going via a UK site?
Is she?
Has any attempt been made to calculate how much Amaral will need?I assume that his anticipated legal costs have been quite accurately estimated for various scenarios.
Portugal Resident
Natasha Donn
September 22, 2015
Appeal to raise money for Maddie cop’s legal costs gets huge cash boost
An anonymous group of Portuguese “business and legal workers” have ploughed over €5,500 (£4000) into the online appeal, set up by a young single mother to raise money for beleaguered ex-Maddie cop Gonçalo Amaral. Amaral’s appeal against the €600,000 in damages awarded against him in the civil case taken out by the parents of missing Madeleine is due to be decided by Lisbon’s Appellate Court “any day now”.
The cash boost has brought the Legal Defence for Gonçalo Amaral to over €65,000 (£47,010).
Donated in the Portuguese language, the text claims to be from “an anonymous group of business and legal workers who are appalled by what has happened”.
It continues: “Portugal and Britain are old allies, but the McCanns and the British gutter press have tried to drive a wedge between us.
“We can all see what they are trying to do, freezing Dr Amaral’s assets to prevent him from defending himself, whilst using the donated millions to sue him.
“That is not justice. It is not right.
“The McCanns lost five out of the seven issues, but the British press has not reported that, nor the strong terms used by the judge against their so called ‘evidence’.
“They have to pay 60% of the costs, but the British press has not reported that” either, the text continues, stressing that “this small donation is to ensure that this act of hate and venom does not succeed”.
The donation - arriving in the legal fund early on Tuesday morning - has been widely shared on social media where a veritable avalanche of support for Amaral has accompanied him for the past eight years. But so far it has been ignored by the British mainstream media.
As to the former PJ detective’s appeal against the ruling that effectively orders him to pay the McCann’s over €600,000 in damages, that is advancing now through the Appellate Court in Lisbon.
As a friend of the former detective’s explained, “it is not a public process. There is no court date.
“At some point, the judges reach a verdict and then they communicate that verdict to all parties. There is however no deadline. It may take weeks or months until we hear anything”.
natasha.donn@algarveresident.com
http://portugalresident.com/appeal-to-r ... qNHsV.dpuf
I gathered that.Because the gofundme site is vastly better than the PJGA site.
But why not promote his PJGA fund instead in the first place? How many of his PT fan club glued to Dear Julia's matinée TV show understand English? And what would be the point of getting them to go via a UK site to redirect their spare cash back to PT?
why not...what a wonderful opportunity to tell the world the truth....masses of free publicity for amaral's cause...the donations would have rolled in...something very much not right here
Why are there two entries by "anonimo anonimo"? Is this a mistake or coincidence? One has a lower case "a" and the other upper case.
Portugal Resident ...10 out of 10 for the Portugal Resident.
The English girl set it up, didn't she? Could she have set it up via a different country?
I don't see PT listed.
And what's the point when there was already a fund set up?
Is my country supported?
Supported countries and currencies include: United States of America ($USD), United Kingdom (£GBP), Canada ($CAD), Australia ($AUD), and some European Union countries that use the Euro as their official currency (€EUR).
USA & CANADA
UK ONLY
AUSTRALIA ONLY
FRANCE ONLY
INTERNATIONAL
Ireland, United Kingdom, Belgium, Finland,
Germany, Luxembourg, Netherlands, Spain, Italy, Austria
See Stripe for Ireland's Fees
CHARITIES ONLY
INTERNATIONAL
Ireland, United Kingdom, Belgium, Finland,
Germany, Luxembourg, Netherlands, Spain, Italy, Austria
What about taxes and stuff?
Unfortunately, we're unable to provide specific tax advice since everyone's situation is different. While this is by no means a guarantee, most donations on GoFundMe are simply considered to be 'personal gifts' which are not taxed as income in the US. Additionally, only donations made to a legally registered non-profit or charity may be considered eligible for donors to claim as a tax deduction. Again, every situation is different so please consult with a tax professional in your area.
Does it cost anything?
While it's free to create and share your online fundraising campaign, GoFundMe will deduct a 5% fee from each donation that you receive. Since our fee is deducted automatically, you'll never need to worry about being billed or owing us any money. A small processing fee of about 3% will also be deducted from each donation. Please see Pricing & Fees for more info.
why not...what a wonderful opportunity to tell the world the truth....masses of free publicity for amaral's cause...the donations would have rolled in...something very much not right hereYou seem to have forgotten Dave that the cause you are supporting is to prevent Mr Amaral and his supporters publicising their opinions
In reality the majority of money going to charities is used to pay the salaries of those who do the fundraising.
You seem to have forgotten Dave that the cause you are supporting is to prevent Mr Amaral and his supporters publicising their opinions
It doesn't actually say that this group of professionals from the business and legal world are Portuguese...
Because the gofundme site is vastly better than the PJGA site.Yes, it's far better for propaganda purposes and much easier to manipulate, I agree.
Donations appear instantly, donators can publically state why they are donating, people can see others 'donations instantly, read why they donated, vote on them, and think "oh I see someone has just donated 8K, I have my card here I think I will donate twenty pounds". There is no such interaction on the PJGA or MFNSLUL sites.
You can never know what that organisation is planning, or what anyone else with a camera is planning too (e.g. Kleeman). This time last year who knew what they were about to do?Do you think donating to the Fund would be construed by the GBP to be in the same league as being a spiteful troll then?
Hmmm ... which would go some way to explaining why the donation was in Sterling and not Euros.
Because the gofundme site is vastly better than the PJGA site.
Donations appear instantly, donators can publically state why they are donating, people can see others 'donations instantly, read why they donated, vote on them, and think "oh I see someone has just donated 8K, I have my card here I think I will donate twenty pounds". There is no such interaction on the PJGA or MFNSLUL sites.
True but the "donate" buttons on the website remain in good working order (as of 15 minutes ago). So the website owners have a different view it would seem
Not uniquely no.
Did I suggest otherwise?
Is there any particular reason you think that people who wish to donate to Madeleine's Fund should not be able to do what they want to do with their own money?
Given the Amaral Beer and Baccy fund is now 4 grand (ish) better off than it was, is it really of any consequence where it came from? Or for that matter is it of consequence where the donors claim it came from and who they claim to be?
Have they done anything illegal?
I could be wrong. But I confess I thought all contributions were (at least recorded) in sterling rather than euros.
Of course, I will now go back and check and find I'm wrong ....
Given the Amaral Beer and Baccy fund is now 4 grand (ish) better off than it was, is it really of any consequence where it came from? Or for that matter is it of consequence where the donors claim it came from and who they claim to be?Dunno. We don't even know if the Fund really IS better off, or if this donation has simply been recycled from earlier donations.
Have they done anything illegal?
Did I say anything to the contrary?
As if ... that would be to belie the unbiased approach you profess in all things McCann ... surely you were merely rejoicing that ... "the donate buttons on the website (Madeleine McCann's) remain in good working order".
I am content that people who wish to are able to continue to make contributions to Madeleine's Fund ... just as there are those happy to contribute to Mr Amaral's Fund. But thanks for checking the status of Madeleine's Fund, anyway ... it is good to keep up to speed with these things.
As if ... that would be to belie the unbiased approach you profess in all things McCann ... surely you were merely rejoicing that ... "the donate buttons on the website (Madeleine McCann's) remain in good working order".Keeping up to speed... the MFLNSU site on its "about" page says
I am content that people who wish to are able to continue to make contributions to Madeleine's Fund ... just as there are those happy to contribute to Mr Amaral's Fund. But thanks for checking the status of Madeleine's Fund, anyway ... it is good to keep up to speed with these things.
Gosh,all this spleen venting for a measly 45k for the defence of a vilified man just doing his job, but not a single question about the mllions running into and out of the Maddie Fund and not shown transparentlyBTW it's 47.23 K actually. And yes I've posed some questions about the opposite fund - like the mysterious third aim their website claims still exists.
SSDD
BTW it's 47.23 K actually. And yes I've posed some questions about it - like the mysterious third object they claim still exists.
Sorry Pegs, third object?"... To provide support, including financial assistance, to Madeleine's family."
"... To provide support, including financial assistance, to Madeleine's family."
You seem to be deflecting.
You said this did you not?
Madeleine's Fund is dedicated to looking for Madeleine ... remember her? the missing child.
At the moment there is no requirement for her parents to raise money for that ... as the people who have the legal right and the legal powers to do that are currently so doing.
Why do you persist in asking such an unnecessary question ... what point are you trying to make?
"At the moment there is no requirement for her parents to raise money for that"[the search].
I was merely pointing out that whether or not there is a requirement for it, and you say there isn't, they are still raising money for it.
Why be so reticent about it.
It seems to bother you more than it does me.
Just had a gander in Twitter and seen some McCann supporters alledging that Mr Amaral is money laundering via gofundme appealThe fantastic things about the gfm appeal for pjga are:
*&*%£
very very very sad people, ah well, takes all sorts to make the world go around
The PJGA clearly states its single object - to pay legal expenses of Mr Amaral.
Why on earth would they spend money on anything else? That is their only aim.
Has any attempt been made to calculate how much money they will need?
Has any attempt been made to calculate how much money they will need?I've never seen a calculation.
I've never seen a calculation.
But both sides will have been given by their respective portuguese lawyers a fairly accurate estimate of what their legal costs are likely to be, in various scenarios.
to be honest i dont know why mcann supporters are so upset about people raising money for GA the mcann supporters did it for the mcanns a bit hypocritial i think? GA isnt responsible for whatever did happen to maddie the mcanns are for their lack of childcare etc
No clue where you get the idea from that McCann supporters are upset.
Baffled as to what Amaral's grounds of appeal might be, perhaps.
But that's different ....
The court clearly was not baffled as they allowed the appeal.
appeal against what,...the judgement or the sentencel
appeal against what,...the judgement or the sentence
Who knows?
He would be able to appeal against either and both as he never admitted guilt.
Whatever the court found it acceptable.
So what was the appeal by one of Amaral's sacked lawyers that proceedings be in camera to "protect Madeleine lest Madeleine be alive" if not an admission of guilt (of libel)?
The fantastic things about the gfm appeal for pjga are:
1. Any organised attempts to post anti-Amaral comments there would face the interesting dilemma of having to donate at least five pounds per post towards Mr Amaral's legal expenses in order to do so.
2. Any organised attempts on other media to discredit that appeal (and there have been several before this childish money laundering allegation) simply result in a surge of donations to the appeal.
The irony is brilliant.
It is, it's all rather very silly, IMO, people so inclined don't put themselves into the danger of getting severe sentences for getting caught for circa 40,000 euros which you can probably easily get by asking for a home improvement loan, get a great new kitchen and bathroom , maybe add nice new wooden floors throughout the house as well and be inside the law
@)(++(*
I'm just looking forward to amaral getting totally squashed...he's partially squashed now but the rest is on it's way...bless
So what was the appeal by one of Amaral's sacked lawyers that proceedings be in camera to "protect Madeleine lest Madeleine be alive" if not an admission of guilt (of libel)?
Amaral presented a hypothesis/theory....he never said he had found this child's body...a police theory is not libellous as confirmed by the appellant higher court when his book got unbanned a few years back
I don't think the learned lady judge quite saw it that way ... hence the appeals for monetary gifts to fund Mr Amaral's appeal against her sentence.
Don't you think she set the damages so high as to almost guarantee an appeal.
I don't think the learned lady judge quite saw it that way ... hence the appeals for monetary gifts to fund Mr Amaral's appeal against her sentence.
Did the learned judge state Amaral had committed libel?
We have gone through this so often before. Mr Amaral was the defendant in a libel trial which he lost and damages were awarded against him to the pursuers.According to someone called Anônimo Anônimo:
What does that tell you?
He is now appealing against the judgement of the court.
We have gone through this so often before. Mr Amaral was the defendant in a libel trial which he lost and damages were awarded against him to the pursuers.
What does that tell you?
He is now appealing against the judgement of the court.
Amaral presented a hypothesis/theory....he never said he had found this child's body...a police theory is not libellous as confirmed by the appellant higher court when his book got unbanned a few years back
You didn't answer my question
The answer to your question is that there were various proven facts under this, generic, heading:
McCanns v. Gonçalo Amaral: Libel Trial - Judge's Ruling
According to someone called Anônimo Anônimo:
"... perderam 5 das suas 7 pretensões .... Têm de pagar 60% das custas ..."
which means something like lost 5 of the 7 points, have to pay 60% of costs
That can't be true can it?
Amaral presented a hypothesis/theory....he never said he had found this child's body...a police theory is not libellous as confirmed by the appellant higher court when his book got unbanned a few years back
That needs to be set in proper context.
If Amaral had confined his thoughts and theories to the process, the McCanns would not have been able to touch him, just as they can't touch Almeida for his interim report, because Almeida has never (so far as I am aware) discussed the content of that report outside the process.
It depends what "Anônimo Anônimo" *cough* is referring to:"no tangible evidence that his spoutings had harmed the search"
- the claims on behalf of the twins were dismissed (any damage would be indirect)
- no tangible evidence that his spoutings had harmed the search (Paiva said he carried on processing new information; no evidence of a drop of public interest in the case (which I find a bit of an odd conclusion as the PT media lady had said that there were hundreds of articles following the publication / DVD... but largely upholding his theory)
- the proven gains turned out to be less than the original estmated amount.
- They were ordered to pay a higher percentage of costs (58%, from memory). It's not entirely clear whether that would be related to the injunction fees and / or hiring of AV equipment to view the film (which would be borne by the party requesting it).
"no tangible evidence that his spoutings had harmed the search"
If that's true then which of the two "objects" of the MF would be furthered by this libel case?
When the action began the fund still had 'supporting the family' as one of it's aims. That changed during the process. The only payout ordered was to the parents. If they win on appeal I expect the money will go into the Fund (less costs). If they lose the question then is should the costs be paid by the Fund?The lawyers and other legal costs of the libel case against Mr Amaral are presumably currently being paid by someone (unless the lawyers happy to do probono for their foreign clients for 6+ yrs?)
When the action began the fund still had 'supporting the family' as one of it's aims. That changed during the process. The only payout ordered was to the parents. If they win on appeal I expect the money will go into the Fund (less costs). If they lose the question then is should the costs be paid by the Fund?
"no tangible evidence that his spoutings had harmed the search"
If that's true then which of the two "objects" of the MF would be furthered by this libel case?
The search and bringing the perp to justice. Insisting that she's dead, her parents are innit, at a time when there was no live investigation, hampered that, IMO, even if it couldn't be empirically proven to the judge's satisfaction.
But that's the problem Carana. You say IYO that Amaral hampered the search. The evidence shows that many, many members of the public during the time the investigation was closed came forward with sightings etc ( even Duarte's claim that Pavia didn't follow up these signings proves this ). The available evidence does not prove your contention, in fact it proves the opposite so why do you still feel the opposite is true ?Mr Amaral's book cannot possibly have impeded or prevented the ongoing very active search by both SY and the PJ.
Mr Amaral's book cannot possibly have impeded or prevented the ongoing very active search by both SY and the PJ.
But that's the problem Carana. You say IYO that Amaral hampered the search. The evidence shows that many, many members of the public during the time the investigation was closed came forward with sightings etc ( even Duarte's claim that Pavia didn't follow up these signings proves this ). The available evidence does not prove your contention, in fact it proves the opposite so why do you still feel the opposite is true ?
"Sightings" by anyone was still guaranteed news sales for the media - whether it was by psychics or anyone else, or indeed genuine or invented by hacks with 15 mins. to produce something to fill space.
Some may not have taken much notice of his spoutings (I haven't said the contrary) in NZ, US, India, plus numerous "psychics", but those who might have genuinely have had potentially useful info would have connections with PdL - which is where she disappeared.
Some people may be either predisposed to the dunnit theory, or have been slowly led to that theory via selected translations of articles relating to the idea the X police force is one of the best in the world, then you / one could tend to believe that.
Once that has been "established", it's not that easy to stand back and reassess. Particularly, possibly, if you are local, someone connected to you has had business/ employment affected, someone in your family has been under suspicion before when it was clearly nothing to do with your loved ones and you were terrified of it happening again... you do have a suspicion but can't say anything for whatever reason...
I'm sorry Carana I may be missing something but what have your last two paragraphs got to do with the possible implications of Amaral's book on the search for Madeleine ?
If Amaral had not previously been a serving police officer and written the book with knowledge gleaned from that role then the judgement would not have gone against him. The judgement was not about the truth of his thesis but that his former role precluded him from writing the book at all.
The lawyers and other legal costs of the libel case against Mr Amaral are presumably currently being paid by someone (unless the lawyers happy to do probono for their foreign clients for 6+ yrs?)
The MF paid for witnesses to travel to Portugal to give evidence. The Board seems to be in agreement that suing Amaral was the right thing to do because it harmed the search. Although this wasn't proven I don't suppose they have changed their minds. Account statement 2012-203;To be fair that is indeed transparency - the directors said what they were doing and the reasoning behind it.
'The Fund has covered expenses for witnesses giving evidence in a libel trial in Lisbon against Goncalo Amaral (former coordinator of the Portuguese investigator to find Madeleine). Mr Amaral published a book in 2008 and produced a documentary and DVD in 2009 which claimed Madeleine was dead and that her parents faked an abduction and concealed her body. This has caused vast damage to the search for Madeleine in Portugal (where it is most likely that information relating to Madeleine’s abduction and whereabouts will come from.) The Board felt that an attempt to halt this damage was vital in order to further the search for Madeleine hence taking this course of action.'
Is 7 October the date set for the appeal hearing? I've seen it banded around.
Is 7 October the date set for the appeal hearing? I've seen it banded around.Yes Oct 7, but is that when the decision is made, or just the start of a long process?
Thanks FLIf so then I expect a stock of pink articles is at the ready, just in case.
Pegasus, someone knowledgable will hopefully come and tell us, but in this case the appeal hearings/decisions thereafter haven't taken that long have they?, it's the tme in between appeal and hearing that can do
If so then I expect a stock of pink articles is at the ready, just in case.
Pinky himself is probably fed up by now, as he has been for a few years, don't expect him going in blustering his guts away to sky to demanding that the PJs heads are knocked together!!Previously prepared press prose appeared on the day it became known the appeal would be heard.
Previously prepared press prose appeared on the day it became known the appeal would be heard.
The judge from the civil court will be sending all of the paperwork to the appeals court on 7 October. There will be no public hearing and no witnesses will be heard by the 3 judges of the appeals court. They will study the appeals, the counter appeals and the judge's verdict and then they will announce their decision. When? No one knows.
According to Portuguese law, the right to appeal is always guaranteed.Yes you are right Montclair, my apologies, and I see you did point this out long ago. However I was just noting the coincidence between the day that the Oct 7 date became known, and the day when the "setting aside money for the search" article appeared.
Yes you are right Montclair, my apologies, and I see you did point this out long ago. However I was just noting the coincidence between the day that the Oct 7 date became known, and the day when the "setting aside money for the search" article appeared.
Why would the closure of Madeleine McCann's account on social media be a reason to boost Mr Amaral's funding appeal?
Why would the closure of Madeleine McCann's account on social media be a reason to boost Mr Amaral's funding appeal?Any publicity the Fund gets is an excuse for the same old bunch of trolls to dig into their pockets for the umpteenth time in order to give the impression that thousands of new donors have been turned on to it. It's extraordinarily pitiful to watch.
Any publicity the Fund gets is an excuse for the same old bunch of trolls to dig into their pockets for the umpteenth time in order to give the impression that thousands of new donors have been turned on to it. It's extraordinarily pitiful to watch.
Due to the publicity today, the fund is now £ 50.030,--. The McCanns must be ever so exasperated now.How much has been taken out of this fund already do we know?
How much has been taken out of this fund already do we know?
According to Portuguese law, the right to appeal is always guaranteed.
Did you donate ? If not then it's none of your business.........or at least that's what you tell us about the 'fund'.I donated £5 actually, so I think I have every right to question it.
Anyway excellent news and well done again to Jerry Lawton.
I donated £5 actually, so I think I have every right to question it.
I donated £5 actually, so I think I have every right to question it.
Not true.
The right to appeal is more liberally interpreted than (for example) in English law, but it is not automatic.
If the appellant fulfills the 4 bureaucratic conditions, the appeal goes automatically to the higher court. There are no other conditions. The lower court judge can't say, "I find your arguments weak and irrelevant, so I won't send them to the appeals court". You seem to be the only one here who does not understand how the law works here in Portugal.
Not the only one. I seem to recall Jean-Pierre was surprised that he managed to squeeze out an appeal that was accepted.
Still, I'm sure Amaral's (present) lawyer will have great success in persuading learned judges of a higher court that directly accusing a couple against whom Portuguese prosecutors could find no evidence of any wrong-doing of causing the death of their own daughter, covering up the "fact" of her death and launching a fraudulent "fund" in their (dead) daughter's name is not libel.
Are you for real? Jean-Pierre said;
September 07, 2015, 09:57:37 AM »
For what its worth, my thoughts on the news of Amaral's appeal are as follows:
Under Portuguese law, Amaral has a right to appeal the decision of the court, as is right and proper.
There are three possibilities:
That the appeal count will agree the original verdict in which case no further appeals will be allowed
That the appeal court modify the verdict, in which either party can appeal.
That the appeal count overturn the original verdict, in which either party can appeal (probably the McCanns)
Are you for real? Jean-Pierre said;
September 07, 2015, 09:57:37 AM »
For what its worth, my thoughts on the news of Amaral's appeal are as follows:
Under Portuguese law, Amaral has a right to appeal the decision of the court, as is right and proper.
There are three possibilities:
That the appeal count will agree the original verdict in which case no further appeals will be allowed
That the appeal court modify the verdict, in which either party can appeal.
That the appeal count overturn the original verdict, in which either party can appeal (probably the McCanns)
Jean-Pierre didn't dispute Amaral's right to lodge an appeal.
He was surprised the appeal lodged was accepted (for consideration by the higher court).
Are you for real? Jean-Pierre said;
September 07, 2015, 09:57:37 AM »
For what its worth, my thoughts on the news of Amaral's appeal are as follows:
Under Portuguese law, Amaral has a right to appeal the decision of the court, as is right and proper.
There are three possibilities:
That the appeal count will agree the original verdict in which case no further appeals will be allowed
That the appeal court modify the verdict, in which either party can appeal.
That the appeal count overturn the original verdict, in which either party can appeal (probably the McCanns)
I think, what we miss, in our discussion of this point is the middle stage in a 3-stage process (of appeal).
If one party is dissatisfied with the outcome of the first stage of a litigation dispute (even as a victor) yes, there is automatic recourse to apply for leave to appeal.
That's the first stage.
The second stage is that said (submitted) grounds are either accepted or rejected.
I think the bar for acceptance of those grounds is lower in Portugal than in UK, but still, there is a bar.
Jean-Pierre was of the view that Amaral's (lodged) appeal would come under the bar and be rejected.
Seemingly, it made it over the bar and was accepted.
But to be clear, there is a distinction between automatic right to lodge grounds of appeal and the supposition that grounds lodged will be accepted.
Seems perfectly straightforward to me. The appeal is underway and all we have to do is wait for the result.
No cite?
So I wasn't allowed the link before.
Try this one:
http://miscarriageofjustice.co/index.php?topic=6269.msg245147#msg245147
I think, what we miss, in our discussion of this point is the middle stage in a 3-stage process (of appeal).
If one party is dissatisfied with the outcome of the first stage of a litigation dispute (even as a victor) yes, there is automatic recourse to apply for leave to appeal.
That's the first stage.
The second stage is that said (submitted) grounds are either accepted or rejected.
I think the bar for acceptance of those grounds is lower in Portugal than in UK, but still, there is a bar.
Jean-Pierre was of the view that Amaral's (lodged) appeal would come under the bar and be rejected.
Seemingly, it made it over the bar and was accepted.
But to be clear, there is a distinction between automatic right to lodge grounds of appeal and the supposition that grounds lodged will be accepted.
You still don't or don't want to understand! His appeal was sent to the higher court because the process complied with the 4 bureaucratic conditions: the crime or whatever can be appealed according to the law, the fees are paid, the person who files the appeal is the one concerned and the appeal is filed within the time limit. That is ALL!!! No one decides whether the arguments given are valid enough to go to a higher court. It is just not done like this in Portugal. The right to appeal is automatic and it is the higher court which will judge the arguments or grounds. There is no intermediary phase as you state. This is not England.
You still don't or don't want to understand! His appeal was sent to the higher court because the process complied with the 4 bureaucratic conditions: the crime or whatever can be appealed according to the law, the fees are paid, the person who files the appeal is the one concerned and the appeal is filed within the time limit. That is ALL!!! No one decides whether the arguments given are valid enough to go to a higher court. It is just not done like this in Portugal. The right to appeal is automatic and it is the higher court which will judge the arguments or grounds. There is no intermediary phase as you state. This is not England.
However, the appeal must have substance, and challenge either proven facts or specific points of law.
(Jean-Pierre)
Just my opinion, but I find this 'proven fact' quite strange;
13. Because of the statements made by defendant Gonçalo Amaral in the book, in the documentary and in the interview to Correio da Manhã, authors Kate McCann and Gerald McCann suffer permanent anguish, insomnia, lack of appetite, anxiety and irritability, preoccupation and indefinable fear?
Proved.
The judge adds that this psychological state is predates the book launch, the documentary and the interview and was not caused by them. Nonetheless, it is not unreasonable to believe that the book, the documentary and the interview had an effect on the couple, i.e. It had an effect but that is to be expected.
Firstly, there is no medical evidence as to the McCann's state of mind. Insomnia? Do they need sleeping pills? Anxiety? Are they on medication for that? How can the judge say that these conditions existed when there was no expert evidence given? She assumes they existed, and says they weren't caused by Amaral. The best she can say is that what he did 'had an effect' (she believes?). That all seems quite imprecise to me.
i know that the much admired (by some) OxfordBloo thought there were no grounds for an appeal, but I can't find where Jean-Pierre said what you are alleging. i'm sure you can find the post you're referring to though.
It all seems plain common sense to me.
I guess that's where we differ.
accuracy please..oxford bloo said the only grounds for appeal as far as he could see was on the level of damages...amaral has stated he is appealing the sentence........so that seems to fit
OxfordBloo said so very much;
OxfordBloo
Guest
Re: Gonçalo Amaral confirms he will appeal the damages decision to higher Court.
« Reply #12 on: May 01, 2015, 02:00:50 PM »
Quote
Quote from: davel on May 01, 2015, 01:58:10 PM
so you think his request for appeal will be refused
I cannot see what his grounds for appeal could possibly be. *&*%£ *&*%£
You sceptics are very good at taking things out of context
OxfordBloo said so very much;
OxfordBloo
Guest
Re: Gonçalo Amaral confirms he will appeal the damages decision to higher Court.
« Reply #12 on: May 01, 2015, 02:00:50 PM »
Quote
Quote from: davel on May 01, 2015, 01:58:10 PM
so you think his request for appeal will be refused
I cannot see what his grounds for appeal could possibly be. *&*%£ *&*%£
Quote from: OxfordBloo on May 02, 2015, 08:31:58 AM
One can only appeal if one has grounds.
One can only appeal to the ECHR if it is a matter of Human Rights- it is not a Supreme Court, only a Tribunal interpreting the European Convention.
Legal Costs also build on each side. In Portugal I understand that lawyers fees are paid by each side and there are rarely costs awarded against one side alone.
I can see no easy grounds for appeal- appeals are not automatic and require permission.
I understand that the McCanns are indemnified for their legal costs a d Amaral is not.
I think it may be over bar the shouting.
Oxford Blue .....
Wrong again then.
Bodes ill for Amaral's chances in the appeal.
Bodes ill for Amaral's chances in the appeal.
Just my opinion, but I find this 'proven fact' quite strange;
13. Because of the statements made by defendant Gonçalo Amaral in the book, in the documentary and in the interview to Correio da Manhã, authors Kate McCann and Gerald McCann suffer permanent anguish, insomnia, lack of appetite, anxiety and irritability, preoccupation and indefinable fear?
Proved.
The judge adds that this psychological state is predates the book launch, the documentary and the interview and was not caused by them. Nonetheless, it is not unreasonable to believe that the book, the documentary and the interview had an effect on the couple, i.e. It had an effect but that is to be expected.
Firstly, there is no medical evidence as to the McCann's state of mind. Insomnia? Do they need sleeping pills? Anxiety? Are they on medication for that? How can the judge say that these conditions existed when there was no expert evidence given? She assumes they existed, and says they weren't caused by Amaral. The best she can say is that what he did 'had an effect' (she believes?). That all seems quite imprecise to me.
I find that Oxford Bloo correctly drilled down to the basic issues in the a quo court ruling.
On the other hand, I agree with Montclair that an appeal process was likely to be accepted.
It's simply not the same system.
Just posted on gofundme:
£10
Paul Rees
3 hours ago
Tenner Tuesday. May the presiding appeal judges see how nonsensical the amount awarded was, given the farcical statements of the witnesses who undermined the McCanns' position with almost every word they uttered. Incomprehensible and just plain wrong.
Well, well.
I wonder if we have a clue of the basis of Amaral's appeal?
Why would he know?
Why wouldn't he?
Well, as far as I know he has no special relationship with Amaral. He's just giving his hopes for the appeal as he donates.
The formulation of Amaral's defence and the output on internet message boards does seem to show a causal relation.
A single example will suffice. It was first mooted on message boards that the McCanns might not be able to bring a legal action in the name of their missing daughter, Madeleine.
And that tack was adopted by Amaral's legal team, but, (as we know) fell flat.
Odd, because Madeleine's name definitely featured in actions brought in respect of the injunction ....
So what became of Amaral's confirmed appeal?
Does anyone know?
ETA:
Against the libel verdict in favour of the McCanns ....
As you well know the word libel was not mentioned once in the court proceedings. It was a damages case.
Amaral's support site...who have paid his lawyer...based in Portugal...refer to it as a Libel trial
Amaral's support site...who have paid his lawyer...based in Portugal...refer to it as a Libel trial
Totally irrelevant. As previously pointed out several times to those who don't like it, the words libel and defamation (difamação) do not appear anywhere in the official Portuguese judgement. That's good enough for me!
Why would you expect them to?
As has also been pointed out, damage is never paid in its own right.
It is always paid in respect of something.
Why would you expect them to?
As has also been pointed out, damage is never paid in its own right.
It is always paid in respect of something.
Its clear for anyone to see, the judgement did not seek to prove defamation. It will be an eye opener however as to what the appeal court make of it.What were the damages awarded for?
As you well know the word libel was not mentioned once in the court proceedings. The McCanns sought and won damages because of the injury Mr Amaral caused to their reputations.
Personally I cannot see how any judge could come to that decision without knowing the truth surrounding Madeleine's disappearance.
I guess if you think of it as happening in the UK, it was as if Redwood retired then wrote a book saying they had done it.
What were the damages awarded for?
They were a claim for damages made by the McCanns as compensation for the embarrassment and trauma suffered by them following the publication of Mr Amaral's book and dvd. Defamation does not feature once in the case.do the words "embarrassment" and "trauma" feature in the ruling then?
do the words "embarrassment" and "trauma" feature in the ruling then?
So no news of Amaral's appeal against the libel decision in favour of the McCanns, then?
Thought not ....
So no news of Amaral's appeal against the libel decision in favour of the McCanns, then?
Thought not ....
So no news of Amaral's appeal against the libel decision in favour of the McCanns, then?
Thought not ....
So no news of Amaral's appeal against the libel decision in favour of the McCanns, then?
Thought not ....
Not as such but since you fail to understand the case I wanted to respond in terms you could understand my dear fellow.but by your logic because the word "libel" does not feature in the judgment it wasn't a libel trial, so what was it then? Damages were awarded for what breach of the law? Is it against the law to cause embarrassment? Is there a specific law against causing trauma to another? Trauma as a result of what specific cause or action?
AH HERE IT IS...
was there a libel case in Portugal?
IF there was a discision it would be to most peoples astonishment because I do no recall a libel case taking place.
The only court case I recall was for pursuit of money claimed by Kate n Gerry and in their three children's names, ( the fate of one was/is unknown).
They cliamed the books content hurt them and caused them ain and suffering. The judge did ask if it was worse than their child being missing and well, the answer was yes. make of that what you will.
However, the judgement was that some of the contents of the book would have caused some upset for the parents.
On that note it is worth remembering:
IF the parents are innocent of hiding their daughters body, they would quite rightly be raging beyond belief.
IF the parents did make their daughter disappear, they would be raging to be under suspicion because they tried so hard to hide /cover up their involvement; so either way they were going to be 'affected' by the book.
On another note: their reputation was in tatters in the eyes of many anyway, once the truth came out about their behaviour.
Now we have to look at the luvvies comments because they seem to be of the opinion that Amarals book content as indeed causing more pain than their daughters disappearance. Amaral proved that they enjoyed a 'celebrity lifestyle' which they would never have had if their daughter had not 'disappeared'... and to claim money on behalf of their 'missing' daughter saying his book affected her was/IS an abomination, and a measure of their greed and love of money. I would feel Their daughter's plight and their involvment of it ( leaving her alone every night) would have caused little Maddie much more pain- but the luvvies will no doubt disagree.
What dross is this?
If learned Portuguese judges had found Amaral's book to be true, or at the very least, not proven untrue, they would have invited the McCanns to poke their suffering, and would have found in favour of Amaral.
They didn't, because they found huge swathes of Amaral's book to be proven untrue, and to traduce the reputations of the McCanns.
Has anyone a copy of the original writ? That will state what the damages are for.
But perm anything you like form this lot:
http://legal-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/damages
Admitting that I know nothing about Portuguese law, the damages awarded in this case seem more like punitive damages to me. Rather than compensating the McCanns the judge seemed to be punishing Amaral for using his position and failing to uphold the presumption of innocence which that position required of him.
punitive damages, which are awarded not to compensate a plaintiff for injury suffered but to penalize a defendant for particularly egregious, wrongful conduct.
That being the case what grounds do you think he has for appeal?
Admitting that I know nothing about Portuguese law, the damages awarded in this case seem more like punitive damages to me. Rather than compensating the McCanns the judge seemed to be punishing Amaral for using his position and failing to uphold the presumption of innocence which that position required of him.
punitive damages, which are awarded not to compensate a plaintiff for injury suffered but to penalize a defendant for particularly egregious, wrongful conduct.
That being the case what grounds do you think he has for appeal?
No idea, but when the book ban was overturned the Supreme Court said Amaral's right to freedom of expression 'trumped' the McCanns right to a good reputation.
The judge didn't expressly contradict the Supreme Court ruling. She said Amaral broke Judicial secrecy and took advantage of his position by using the contents of the files to write his book. She assumed (probably correctly) that he wrote the book while the files were still secret. Will the appeal court agree? We shall have to wait and see.
The judge's second point was that he was supposed, as a retired senior police officer, to uphold the presumption of innocence. Another point for the appeal court to ponder.
Admitting that I know nothing about Portuguese law, the damages awarded in this case seem more like punitive damages to me. Rather than compensating the McCanns the judge seemed to be punishing Amaral for using his position and failing to uphold the presumption of innocence which that position required of him.
punitive damages, which are awarded not to compensate a plaintiff for injury suffered but to penalize a defendant for particularly egregious, wrongful conduct.
I should think the appeal will revolve around the fact that he published after he left.It seems the law forbids him from doing this...his previous form seems to show he had little respect for the law
I tend to agree. Damages for the children were tossed out by the judge.
Anyway it wasn't about the money:
Speaking today, their Portuguese lawyer Isabel Duarte said: “It was never about the money. It was about stopping awful lies being printed, which hindered the search for Madeleine.”
Then:
"She[the judge] concluded 14 facts had not been proven, ruling Amaral’s statement in his book had not led to Portuguese police halting their search for Madeleine".
I guess all will be revealed in due course, with respect to Sr Amaral's appeal.
The judge's second point was that he was supposed, as a retired senior police officer, to uphold the presumption of innocence. Another point for the appeal court to ponder.
I totally agree. 8((()*/
However, there were goings on in the case which have yet to be explored in a court of law. I would like to all the facts surrounding what went on tested in Court.
I should think the appeal will revolve around the fact that he published after he left.
The facts are that amaral abused his position as a police officer.....that's it
Not quite, he had the right to defend himself against plots.
Not quite, he had the right to defend himself against plots.what plots?
I don't know whether breaking judicial secrecy was a criminal offense, but the McCann's lawyer seemed to think it was. If so, no action has been taken against him. Does that mean that the judge in the 'libel' trial was wrong?
That matter was raised by the McCanns' representative, Isabel Duarte, who is going to file a criminal action against Gonçalo Amaral over breaching the judicial secrecy.
http://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/PJ/PE-PA.htm
Criminal action (or none) is a separate matter.
The McCanns brought a civil libel action against Amaral and won.
I think Amaral's rantings in the wake of that victory (for the McCanns) that Madeleine disappeared because the McCanns left the children is highly significant.
It suggests he has abandoned theMcCannsdunsomethingtoMadeleineandcovereditup, as does the plea of one of his (sacked) lawyers that proceedings be in camera to protect Madeleine lest Madeleine be alive.
All strongly suggestive that Amaral admitted libel, and has only the size of the award (in favour of the McCanns) to dispute ...
I agree...it is only the size of the award that is in question...amaral denied the McCanns their human right......enshrined in European law...to be presumed innocent.... the Portuguese justice system then tried to further deprive them further of their rights...their right to silence and non incrimination....and amaral talks about his rights
Do you not think the parents of a missing infant have a moral obligation to assist police regardless of the consequences to themselves or where that cooperation might lead? Do the rights of a parent supercede that of a missing child?In a perfect world yes...but if you look at what the PJ did to cipriano ....when you realise that all the PJ wanted to do was pin the crime on the McCanns...then what the mccanns did was absolutely right
Just curious to know?
Do you not think the parents of a missing infant have a moral obligation to assist police regardless of the consequences to themselves or where that cooperation might lead? Do the rights of a parent supercede that of a missing child?
Just curious to know?
IMO the parents had a moral obligation to their daughter to ensure that everything possible was being done to find her and that the perpetrator was put behind bars - and had no obligation - moral or otherwise - to assist the police to pin the crime on an innocent person thus abandoning Madeleine and leaving the real criminal out there free to do the same again.
In this case the police were trying to pin the crime on the McCanns who knew that they were not the perpetrators - so why on earth would they do anything to assist Amaral and co to allow the real criminal to keep his freedom and bring the search for Madeleine to a premature end.
Therefore IMO by exercising her right - Kate was also exercising Madeleine's right to be searched for by removing the risk of having her case wrongly closed.
I notice that although sceptics are keen to persecute Kate McCann for exercising her rights over the 48 questions - they rarely mention the questions themselves. Could it be that like me they wonder how refusing to answer questions like ....Q16. 'What does ''we let her down' mean'' - could possibly hamper the investigation?
Maybe we should have a thread and discuss the 48 questions individually - which IMO were designed purely to get answers from Kate which they could then choose to interpret as evidence of a motive - whether they were or not.
Personally, I would omit 9 letters from that (otherwise) exemplary post: IMO (repeated twice).
The title of the thread is, in a sense, correct.
It is the size of damages awarded to the McCanns (in respect of proven and established libel) that Amaral is appealing.
Nothing else.
There's nothing else he can appeal.
IMO the parents had a moral obligation to their daughter to ensure that everything possible was being done to find her and that the perpetrator was put behind bars - and had no obligation - moral or otherwise - to assist the police to pin the crime on an innocent person thus abandoning Madeleine and leaving the real criminal out there free to do the same again.
In this case the police were trying to pin the crime on the McCanns who knew that they were not the perpetrators - so why on earth would they do anything to assist Amaral and co to allow the real criminal to keep his freedom and bring the search for Madeleine to a premature end.
Therefore IMO by exercising her right - Kate was also exercising Madeleine's right to be searched for by removing the risk of having her case wrongly closed.
I notice that although sceptics are keen to persecute Kate McCann for exercising her rights over the 48 questions - they rarely mention the questions themselves. Could it be that like me they wonder how refusing to answer questions like ....Q16. 'What does ''we let her down' mean'' - could possibly hamper the investigation?
Maybe we should have a thread and discuss the 48 questions individually - which IMO were designed purely to get answers from Kate which they could then choose to interpret as evidence of a motive - whether they were or not.
The title of the thread is, in a sense, correct.
It is the size of damages awarded to the McCanns (in respect of proven and established libel) that Amaral is appealing.
Nothing else.
There's nothing else he can appeal.
The parents made some judgements immediately.
1. Their daughter had been abducted.
Despite the above conviction, neither of them took responsibility for informing the Ocean Club or the Police. Instead they left that to others and concentrated on telephoning numerous people in the UK to tell them about it.
2. The Portuguese authorities weren't responding correctly.
Again, this was communicated to friends and relatives in the UK. As the parents stayed mostly in their apartment I have no idea how they knew exactly what the Portuguese authorities were or were not doing.
The parents may have been correct about the abduction, but there was no obvious evidence to support that scenario. If the child was abducted it is often the case that they are abandoned nearby shortly afterwards; dead or alive. Given the equal possibility of woke and wandered due to the open patio door the PJ did the correct thing imo. They asked the GNR to concentrate on searching for the child locally. At the same time the Pj began to interview as many people as possible who might have seen something or who might know something.
Had the parents allowed the police to do their job without interference they could have claimed the moral high ground when the investigation failed to pinpoint the crime or the perpetrator. By seriously interfering with the investigation from the beginning they may themselves have prevented the investigation from succeeding.
The title of the thread is, in a sense, correct.
It is the size of damages awarded to the McCanns (in respect of proven and established libel) that Amaral is appealing.
Nothing else.
There's nothing else he can appeal.
As far as the McCanns were concerned the open shutters and window could only mean one thing and that is that someone had entered their apartment and taken Madeleine. They would have been abnormal NOT to have had that as their first thought.
As far as they knew the police had been called and they were anxiously waiting for them to arrive - and then wondering why they hadn't. They were not to know that the reception staff decided to wait for instructions from their Manager - I presume in accordance with the Missing children protocol.
The PJ left - saying they would return at 9.00 the following day. That would never happen in the UK - and would obviously worry them to death. Their main complaint after that was that they were being told nothing. To be kept in the dark at such a time would be excrutiating for them.
The McCanns had no power to stop the PJ from doing anything. To claim that they interfered is simply not true IMO. They did what they thought was best whilst in a shocked and traumatised state - and would not know that advertising a missing child was forbidden in Portugal - as that is the complete opposite of what would happen in the UK. AS it happens a description of Madeleine - including her eye defect was made public at the request of Amaral on the 5th May.
If the worst thing imaginable had happened to my family when I was abroad - I would be desperate to talk to my family back home.
It's so easy to be wise after the event especially when you were not the people who had just been plunged into every parent's worst nightmare and unlike yourself - did not have the 20/20 vision of hindsight.
There are two possibilities in this case. Either the parents told the truth or they didn't. For some their story and behaviour was so strange that it wasn't believable. Others spend their time arguing that their story and behaviour wasn't strange at all.a totally biased and inaccurate post..
So who is more likely to have got it right? The grandmother couldn't believe it when she was told that her grandchildren had been left alone in an unlocked apartment every night. Those who wrote supportive articles in the press expressed surprise that children were left in an unlocked apartment that was clearly vulnerable. The authorities looked. listened and had immediate doubts about what they were being told. Experts from the UK mentioned 'staging' and others pointed out that the child was not in the usual age range for abduction and that the parents should be investigated.
It seems to me that denying that problems exist with the story owes more to wishful thinking than to an unbiased assessment of what was said and done.
a totally biased and inaccurate post..
what authorities had immediate doubts about what they were being told
the staging comment was in a documentary that also said an abductor could have been in and out of the apartment within a minute
It is perfectly normal for the parents to be investigated ...as the needhams were...
you forgot to say SY have said the parents are not suspects and that it is their opinion that maddie was taken in a criminal act by a stranger
Talk is irrelevant, proof is what counts. No way would LP let the McCanns get access to their files because they have not cleared themselves. You think not answering questions clears them @)(++(*
clears them of what
Involvement in the disappearance.
who is accusing them
Nobody is accusing them but they have not been cleared in an unsolved case. If they asked for all the files they would not get them.
so no one's accusing them...looks like they're in the clear then
and what of Madeleine's rights dave ?
How did the mccanns protect hers ?
it shows you don't understand the trial...what has that to do with the trial
The mccanns weren't on trial dave.
They failed to prove many of their claims.
As has happened before, the court of appeal can overthrow the decision of the previous judge.
amaral is penniless...destitute and broken...and as far as I am concerned regarding his other actions too...he deserves it
That's your opinion.
As far as I am concerned, that's what the mccanns deserve for all they have done.
amaral is penniless...destitute and broken...and as far as I am concerned regarding his other actions too...he deserves it
Both sides maintain it was never about money it was about truth.
On that basis either or both parties will be happy to wind up in an impecunious state provided the truth is revealed to the world.
what truth do you expect this trial to reveal...
they were suspects
I have no idea.
I merely said that as both sides proclaim it is not about money but truth, they will be positively ecstatic if they wind up skint as long as the truth is revealed.
PJGA has only one object. It never creatively interprets that one object to spend money on other things. And it never pays PR companies.
We have no idea what it pays for, merely what it states on a blogspot run by anonymous people.Sargento doesn't sound very anonymous IMO
Sargento doesn't sound very anonymous IMO
And PJGA state clearly exactly what their single object is.
BTW can you even tell me how many "objects" that other fund based in the UK has?
Is it 2 or 3 ?
It's remarkable that a few people have exerted so much effort so pointlessly in a desperate attempt to discredit a fund that is totally honest, has only one object, which is clearly stated, and reserves 100% of donors' money exclusively for that object.
On the MFLNSUL official website does it or does it not state that the fund provides financial support to the family?
what was it you said.....a few exerting so much effort to discredit a fund...absolutely pointless
Last time we discussed that 'issue' I made a reply to you, you did not respond.
It is still there.
Have a look.
How can it be described as 'totally honest' when it allowed a false claim regarding the no. of people who had donated to the fund to remain in full view of the public on it's site - with no attempts made to correct it or explain it."allowed a false claim regarding the no, of people who had donated ..."
IMO If the McCanns had done that - sceptics would be down on them like a ton of bricks to point out how dishonest they were and claiming they were deliberately conning the public into thinking they had far more supporters than they actually did.
"allowed a false claim regarding the no, of people who had donated ..."
Let's look at your allegation in detail Benice.
Take a look at any other gfm uk appeal.
Can you show me a single appeal where the "raised by xx people" figure is correct to your high standards?
Why have you criticised only Leanne's appeal for this feature and not criticised the thousands of others with the same feature?
If the same thing is happening on other sites then they too are guilty of giving false information to the public,The "raised by xxx people" counter is completely outside of the control of each appeal's organiser.
It's not a matter of standards high or otherwise. Either something is a true fact or it isn't. AFAIK it's not common practise on such sites for such a large number of people to keep making multiple donations to the same fund. In my experience most people make one donation and that's that.
The one and only purpose of that 'feature' is to show the public how many people have supported the fund. I presume that is because people are interested in knowing the level of the support from the public for a particular person.
In the case of Amaral's fund that is not what has happened. As a result of the large amount of people constantly making repeat donations the total gave a completely erroneous impression of the level of support IMO.
If the 'feature' could have been changed from 'the number of people' to 'the number of donations made' - or failing that - a message stating the true facts about the total being shown on that page, then that would have been fine by me. But IMO that was not done because the total shows more people donating than actually did. A screenshot recently posted asking a person to split their one donation into several smaller donations would appear to support my opinion.
My main reason for pointing this out is because - without a single shadow of a doubt imo - if the McCanns had allowed the same situation to prevail on Kate's fund raising site - they would have been accused of being dishonest and making false claims - faster than a speeding bullet.
AIMHO
The "raised by xxx people" counter is completely outside of the control of each appeal's organiser.
Do you realise that you seem to be accusing tens of thousands of honest gfmappeals of dishonesty by your standards? Every gfmappeal has the same counter Benice, please check for yourself.
Im fairly sure there have been claims made where the number of donations has been misrepresented as the number of donatorsDavel if you had done the easy check I suggested you would realise you are making completely unfair allegations against tens of thousands of honest appeal organisers.
Davel if you had done the easy check I suggested you would realise you are making completely unfair allegations against tens of thousands of honest appeal organisers.
no I'm not...we have discussed this before and I am well aware of the point you are makingIMO criticising how a counter is worded is potkettle coming from those who were happy with with a 50% error when counting up to two.
IMO criticising how a counter is worded is potkettle coming from those who were happy with with a 50% error when counting up to two.
The very best allegation that Mr Amaral's attackers could concoct against LB's honest appeal turns out to be an allegation that was made without the attackers doing the few seconds of research which would have saved them posting it and making no-one but themselves smell like elderberries and if people continue to make the allegation I intend to taunt them some more.What has happened is that Amaral's supporters have exploited the way GFM's page and stats are presented in order to make it appear that Amaral has more support than he actually has. That is a fact, and you can taunt me all you like, nothing changes that fact.
I'm not not criticising how it's worded I'm criticising those who have deliberately misrepresented itSo you're claiming someone deliberately misrepresented it. Where? Do you have a link?
What has happened is that Amaral's supporters have exploited the way GFM's page and stats are presented in order to make it appear that Amaral has more support than he actually has. That is a fact, and you can taunt me all you like, nothing changes that fact.
What has happened is that Amaral's supporters have exploited the way GFM's page and stats are presented in order to make it appear that Amaral has more support than he actually has. That is a fact, and you can taunt me all you like, nothing changes that fact.Do you have a link to any webpage where Amaral supporters exploit that?
Do you have a link to any webpage where Amaral supporters exploit that?The GoFundMe page has all the evidence you require.
The GoFundMe page has all the evidence you require.Can you post a link to any page where Amaral suppoters exploit the way a counter works?
There would not appear to be too many golfers around here!How many is relevant if you're wanting to give the impression that your hard up hero has huge international support. Of course, we know that in the case of Amaral this is not so, hence the desperation on the part of a few hundred sad individuals to make multiple donations in order to boost their hero's ego and to make themselves feel that they are part of a very important and growing justice movement - haw! haw!.
"It is not how that matters; it is how many".
How many people contributed is irrelevant as is the number of contributions. Sr Amaral got his dosh and submitted his appeal which was allowed; job jobbed.
So neither protagonist having landed a knock out blow in round one we await the result of round two.
Score for round one 10:9.
Can you post a link to any page where Amaral suppoters exploit the way a counter works?I don't know what you're asking for - as I said already - all the evidence to support what I said was there clear as day on the page itself. I reckon that's the main reason it was pulled as it all looked as hokey as hell.
Seems to me it is only Amaral attackers who exploit it - they can't find anything dodgy at all with PJGA so they resort to criticising a counter which was not written by LB nor by PJGA.
(snip) ... Sr Amaral got his dosh and submitted his appeal which was allowed; job jobbed...(snip)Yes that's the important thing.
I don't know what you're asking for - as I said already - all the evidence to support what I said was there clear as day on the page itself. I reckon that's the main reason it was pulled as it all looked as hokey as hell.Can you quote a single sentence from an Amaral supporter which exploits the way the counter works?
How many is relevant if you're wanting to give the impression that your hard up hero has huge international support. Of course, we know that in the case of Amaral this is not so, hence the desperation on the part of a few hundred sad individuals to make multiple donations in order to boost their hero's ego and to make themselves feel that they are part of a very important and growing justice movement - haw! haw!.
Not only that, but the GoFundMe comments facility for donations was used by a number of rabid propagandists to post links to "sceptic" facebook pages, blogs and to disseminate "facts" about the case, but quite who they believed they were reaching out to via this method of muck spreading is unclear as, from what I could see, they were simply preaching to the converted. All rather pathetic, if you ask me, which you didn't.
What was the original objective do you suppose ?Of course being the suspicious type I very much doubt £50k was actually raised - the way GoFundMe works you could easily recycle money to give the impression that more was raised than it actually was, even at a percentage cost to the overall actual total. And then of course, there were the fake donors, such as the Sun journo, Jim Gamble, a bunch of Met officers etc. The whole thing stinks like a 10 day old sardine, but of course none of this is of any interest whatsoever to the likes of you, is it...? Of course not!
Seemingly it was to raise a shedful of moolah to be able to submit an appeal. Say he needed 50 grand. That can arrive in one contribution of 50k from one person or 50,000 x 1 contributions from 200 people pretending to be 50,000 the net result is the same.
Objective achieved the job's a goodun how information was used may be under the arm in your opinion but it is neither illegal nor against the rules.
It then goes on to round two.
Live with it.
Can you quote a single sentence from an Amaral supporter which exploits the way the counter works?The fact that the same individuals clearly donated over and over again, week in week out in small amounts exploits the way the page works, to give the impression of more support than there actually is. If you disagree, then your prerogative, your entitled to your opinion, but to a sceptic like me, it stinks.
IMO you are not criticising LB or PJGA or Mr Amaral, you seem to be criticising on tens of thousands of appeal organisers all with same feature.
Off topic old son the thread is about Sr Amarals confirmation he will appeal.I think the customary response to such orders is - "who made you a Mod"?
Start a thread about Sr Amaral's support perceived or otherwise.
Here's a question - does Amaral enjoy massive support for his appeal both here and in his own country? If so, please provide the evidence.Some portuguese people have donated money to pay Mr Amarals legal costs in this libel case.
Can you post a link to any page where Amaral suppoters exploit the way a counter works?
Seems to me it is only Amaral attackers who exploit it - they can't find anything dodgy at all with PJGA so they resort to criticising a counter which was not written by LB nor by PJGA.
The fact that the same individuals clearly donated over and over again, week in week out in small amounts exploits the way the page works, to give the impression of more support than there actually is. If you disagree, then your prerogative, your entitled to your opinion, but to a sceptic like me, it stinks.OK let's do a repeat donation frequency comparision between the GFMPJGA appeal and the
The worst thing about the gofundeme page for me was the amount of lies in the posts. What we are all interested in I would have thought is the truth
The worst thing about the gofundeme page for me was the amount of lies in the posts. What we are all interested in I would have thought is the truthAgreed and a few of of the most unpleasant comments got me briefly wondering could they be by some anti-Amaral maniper posing as supporters to devalue the whole appeal in the press's eyes. Unlikely but if so the irony would be they had to pay at least a fiver a time and their money is being put to good use.
Agreed and a few of of the most unpleasant comments got me briefly wondering could they be by some anti-Amaral maniper posing as supporters to devalue the whole appeal in the press's eyes. Unlikely but if so the irony would be they had to pay at least a fiver a time and their money is being put to good use.
Of course being the suspicious type I very much doubt £50k was actually raised - the way GoFundMe works you could easily recycle money to give the impression that more was raised than it actually was, even at a percentage cost to the overall actual total. And then of course, there were the fake donors, such as the Sun journo, Jim Gamble, a bunch of Met officers etc. The whole thing stinks like a 10 day old sardine, but of course none of this is of any interest whatsoever to the likes of you, is it...? Of course not!
Meantime, I'm struggling to live with it...but it's hard. @)(++(*
OK let's do a repeat donation frequency comparision between the GFMPJGA appeal and theMFLNSUL appealoh sorry cancel that, the donation history and amounts there are so highly transparent I can't see them.
I think the customary response to such orders is - "who made you a Mod"?
Of course being the suspicious type I very much doubt £50k was actually raised - the way GoFundMe works you could easily recycle money to give the impression that more was raised than it actually was, even at a percentage cost to the overall actual total. And then of course, there were the fake donors, such as the Sun journo, Jim Gamble, a bunch of Met officers etc. The whole thing stinks like a 10 day old sardine, but of course none of this is of any interest whatsoever to the likes of you, is it...? Of course not!
Meantime, I'm struggling to live with it...but it's hard. @)(++(*
Of course being the suspicious type I very much doubt £50k was actually raised - the way GoFundMe works you could easily recycle money to give the impression that more was raised than it actually was, even at a percentage cost to the overall actual total. (snip)Pure wishful invention by you unless you have any evidence. And what would be the point? PJGA are not there to do PR. The aim of the GFM appeal was to raise enough money to ensure Mr Amaral could appeal. And it worked perfectly because it meant he could afford a lawyer and the appeal was filed and very soon the result of the appeal will be announced.
Pure wishful invention by you unless you have any evidence. And what would be the point? PJGA are not there to do PR. The aim of the GFM appeal was to raise enough money to ensure Mr Amaral could appeal. And it worked perfectly because it meant he could afford a lawyer and the appeal was filed and very soon the result of the appeal will be announced.
I suppose the customary answer to that could be "Roger Daltrey".to paraphrase John Lennon, you're more of a mocker then, right? 8)--))
But me nah never owned a Lambretta with a squirrel's tail flying off a whip aerial at the back; more sort of a hard rock heavy metal greaser me.
pegasus, Slarti and possibly Alice seem to be in a state of denial regarding the purpose of this Fund. Of secondary importance was raising money for the hard-up hero, clearly its primary objective was as a point scoring exercise and propaganda vehicle. If you can't see that, then that's because you choose not to. Your choice.
pegasus, Slarti and possibly Alice seem to be in a state of denial regarding the purpose of this Fund. Of secondary importance was raising money for the hard-up hero, clearly its primary objective was as a point scoring exercise and propaganda vehicle. If you can't see that, then that's because you choose not to. Your choice.
@)(++(*
It seems to me that people donated to Amaral's fund for various reasons. Some believed his thesis, others just disbelieved the McCanns, some were annoyed at being called trolls by the media, some were disgusted that the media didn't report honestly (they all printed Kate McCann's quote saying it was about the search and the children, did any report that none of the money awarded was for those items?). Some people donated because they saw it as unfair that Amaral didn't have the money needed for his defense.his thesis was based on lies
Whatever the reasons, enough was raised for the appeal to be filed, which was the point of the exercise. One clear objective achieved.
@)(++(*Apparently it is against forum rules to make posts whose sole objective is to goad. Your last two posts to me have been rude / goading. As you are a mod and should be setting an example to the rest of us, I trust you will reflect upon the error of your ways, and delete your two last posts to me. Yours in anticipation, Alfred.
absolutely true...Pegasus has admitted that the posts supporting the donations were often based on lies and in some cases extremePegasus and many others were also extremely put out when the media seemed to ignore this fund - a clear indication that it was as much about propaganda and PR spin as anything else.
Pegasus and many others were also extremely put out when the media seemed to ignore this fund - a clear indication that it was as much about propaganda and PR spin as anything else.
his thesis was based on lies
Hypocrite.
What have the mccanns and their cohorts being doing for the last 8 plus years
It was.
Amaral didn't even know (or, more likely, chose to try to deceive people into believing otherwise!) that the enquiry was a murder enquiry.
That the enquiry was a murder enquiry is explicit from Mark Harrison's reports.
It is also explicit from Mark Harrison's reports that he was instructed by the PJ to investigate that Madeleine had been murdered.
Yet, according to Amaral, Harrison switched the enquiry into one for a little girl assumed dead.
And according to Amaral, no one talked about murder.
All lies.
And all reasons why Amaral will lose his appeal (if one has been lodged).
Searching for Madeleine.
And I hope the board abuse will be punished.
It was.
Amaral didn't even know (or, more likely, chose to try to deceive people into believing otherwise!) that the enquiry was a murder enquiry.
That the enquiry was a murder enquiry is explicit from Mark Harrison's reports.
It is also explicit from Mark Harrison's reports that he was instructed by the PJ to investigate that Madeleine had been murdered.
Yet, according to Amaral, Harrison switched the enquiry into one for a little girl assumed dead.
And according to Amaral, no one talked about murder.
All lies.
And all reasons why Amaral will lose his appeal (if one has been lodged).
Dear oh dear. &%&£(+ &%&£(+ &%&£(+
This report considers solely the possibility that Madeleine McCann has been murdered and her body is concealed within the areas previously searched by Police in Zone 1 around Praia Da Luz. Other scenarios or possibilities may on request be considered and be subject of a further report.
(Mark Harrison)
May I remind you ferryman, the crime remains unknown, just as it was then.
No matter how you try to perpeyuate THE STORY OF ABDUCTION,k it remains unknown, and the original team COULD NOT FIND EVIDENCE OF ABDUCTION.
No change on that either.
Which part of the fact that Mark Harrison was instructed by the PJ to investigate that Madeleine had been murdered are you erroneously quibbling about, and why?
Do you dispute the fact that Harrison, himself, reached no definitive conclusion about what happened to Madeleine?
Which part of the fact that Mark Harrison was instructed by the PJ to investigate that Madeleine had been murdered are you erroneously quibbling about, and why?
Do you dispute the fact that Harrison, himself, reached no definitive conclusion about what happened to Madeleine?
So they were searching on the beach for a murdered child. So what? She could have been murdered.
The so what is that Amaral lied that no one talked out about murder
And (more seriously) he lied that Harrison turned the investigation into one for a little girl assumed dead.
Harrison did no such thing (on either count).
This thread is about Amaral's appeal.
and all you want to do is attack him for patently obvious reasons.
And your problem with my explanation of why Amaral is likely to lose his appeal is, what?
Leave that to the court.
And your problem with my explanation of why Amaral is likely to lose his appeal is, what?
The so what is that Amaral lied that no one talked out about murder
And (more seriously) he lied that Harrison turned the investigation into one for a little girl assumed dead.
Harrison did no such thing (on either count).
Your explanation has absolutely nothing to do with the judge's ruling, so nothing of what you referred to will be considered by the appeal court.
They will consider the ruling which said that Amaral broke judicial secrecy and that he ignored the presumption of innocence which, as an ex policeman, he was supposed to uphold.
A girl vanishes and after 3 months there's still no trace. What do you think the police think happened to her? Harrison's report was written before the dogs were deployed - 23/07/2007.
Recommended by;
"It was British police who said they must consider not only abduction but homicide as well."
The NPIA provided a checklist of what should be done, advising the Portuguese police to include the McCanns in their inquiry and take new forensics at their holiday apartment in Praia da Luz.
http://www.mccannfiles.com/id308.html
Requested by;
The reconnaissance undertaken and this report has been completed at the direct request and benefit of Guillhemino Encamacao the Algarve Regional Director of the Portuguese Judicial Police
http://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/PJ/MARK_HARRISON.htm
Apparently it is against forum rules to make posts whose sole objective is to goad. Your last two posts to me have been rude / goading. As you are a mod and should be setting an example to the rest of us, I trust you will reflect upon the error of your ways, and delete your two last posts to me. Yours in anticipation, Alfred.
It is interesting the UK police recommended looking at abduction and homicide.....no mention of an accident and cover up
A girl vanishes and after 3 months there's still no trace. What do you think the police think happened to her? Harrison's report was written before the dogs were deployed - 23/07/2007.
Your explanation has absolutely nothing to do with the judge's ruling, so nothing of what you referred to will be considered by the appeal court.
They will consider the ruling which said that Amaral broke judicial secrecy and that he ignored the presumption of innocence which, as an ex policeman, he was supposed to uphold.
So you think that the outright untruths (at most charitable); lies (at probably more accurate) Amaral has told that lower the reputation of the McCanns are irrelevant?
The truth or otherwise of Amaral's thesis was not considered in the judge's ruling, so it is irrelevant as you have been told many times.
Best to wait and see what the appeal judge decides, I think.
Amaral's lies (at most damning)/inaccuracies (at most charitable) that traduce reputation are deeply relevant to a libel trial.
and wait and see what Grange says rather than speculating about the parents role
Amaral's lies (at most damning)/inaccuracies (at most charitable) that traduce reputation are deeply relevant to a libel trial.
And there was me paying you the (comparative) compliment of assuming you'd read the files (and Amaral's book) ...
Please provide a cite showing what the judge said about Amaral's 'lies'.
They have to cover all possibilities but you can't accuse anybody of murder without evidence and Amaral has never done so. When has Amaral said it was murder? Of course they investigate the possibility.
Q - What do you think could have happened that night?
A - Both the British and Portuguese police, and even the prosecutor, who has already changed his mind, thought the same.. I We talked about death by others, not murder In the room, blood and cadaver odour was found just below a window where a sofa was. The father was talking to a friend just outside that window for a while. The girl was not a heavy sleeper, that's what the parents said. Perhaps she heard her father and climbed to the sofa below the window. But the parents, for the girl not to go out, moved it away from the wall. Madeleine could have fallen.
Amaral said (in an interview to the Spanish El Mundo magazine) no one talked about murder.
Amaral either lied or was incompetent ...
(Goncalo Amaral, El Mundo)
So which is it?
Was Amaral incompetent?
Or did he lie?
Fourth article down:
http://www.mccannfiles.com/id165.html
pegasus, Slarti and possibly Alice seem to be in a state of denial regarding the purpose of this Fund. Of secondary importance was raising money for the hard-up hero, clearly its primary objective was as a point scoring exercise and propaganda vehicle. If you can't see that, then that's because you choose not to. Your choice.
You may be right, however I have given it no more thought than: "The donations accompanied by funny names and purporting to be possibly from someone else etc are doubtless from the type of person who writes to the local rag or national press and signs themselves R.Sole, Alf Huckett or Don Kiddick". I treat them with the same sort of suspicion. The first suspicion has to be, did they mean it as some subversive plot or did they do it just to see if it would get through? In this instance five euros is five euros whatever the motive. As for who has most support out of Drs McCann and Sr Amaral I don't care, can't see its relevance to a case at law, can't see a way of measuring it accurately and generally don't give a rat's ass about a popularity poll faked or otherwise between the two protagonists.Fairy Snuff.
Amaral said (in an interview to the Spanish El Mundo magazine) no one talked about murder.
Amaral either lied or was incompetent ...
(Goncalo Amaral, El Mundo)
So which is it?
Was Amaral incompetent?
Or did he lie?
Fourth article down:
http://www.mccannfiles.com/id165.html
GA: I do not believe that the parents killed her.
Q - So, what are we talking about?
A - About an accident. The child could have fallen from a sofa, could have had an accident with Calpol (a sleeping pill (sic: solution)). We never had access to the girl's medical history, so we don't know whether she was healthy or not. We can only speculate. There are many very strange details.
Q - What do you think could have happened that night?
A - Both the British and Portuguese police, and even the prosecutor, who has already changed his mind, thought the same. We talked about death by others, not murder. In the room, blood and cadaver odour was found just below a window where a sofa was. The father was talking to a friend just outside that window for a while. The girl was not a heavy sleeper, that's what the parents said. Perhaps she heard her father and climbed to the sofa below the window. But the parents, for the girl not to go out, moved it away from the wall. Madeleine could have fallen.
Probably in written submissions.
Instead I will cite an example of (one of) Amaral's lies:
After a week of intense work, Harrison presents the results of his study to my coordinating group. Even if we were expecting it, his conclusions confirm our worst fears. The most plausible scenario is the following: there is no doubt that Madeleine is dead, and her body is hidden somewhere in the area around Praia da Luz.
(More in an edit) ...
Penultimate sentence and paragraph of Harrison's final report.
I am currently of the opinion on the available information and statistical datasets that if death has occurred, that it is possible that Madeleine McCann’s body has been disposed into the sea at Praia da Luz. (See my second report entitled “NPIA OP TASK Search Doc Beach and Marine”).
Spot the lie.
The judge's comments i asked for. If you are arguing that the judge's ruling was about Amaral's lies you should be able to provide details of what she said.
We don't see written submissions on line.
We do know that Santos made a plea that proceedings be in camera to protect Madeleine lest Madeleine be alive.
Seeing as he was Amaral's lawyer, and seeing as Amaral alleges that Kate and Gerry caused her death and covered up the alleged 'fact' of her death, that is highly significant.
As is the fact that Harrison was tasked, by the PJ, to investigate that Madeleine had been 'murdered', contrary to the claim of Amaral that Harrison (himself) turned the investigation into one for a little girl assumed dead.
I'm unclear why you think, in a libel trial, that Amaral's lies don't matter?
I can only comment on what the judge said. Your opinion means nothing. We're all entitled to an opinion, but the judge decided he wasn't entitled to disseminate his. truth or otherwise didn't come into it. Wisely, because no-one knows what happened to the child.
The judge commented that the McCanns are innocent ...
Mark Harrison was tasked to investigate that Madeleine had been murdered ....
Too simplistic and misrepresenting what occurred
IMO what the judge probably meant was more " knowing they are innocent".....insert rest of the sentence/question asked
In any case she would be in no position to state their innocence as a given when no one in the judicio/pj capacity had hitherto....., which makes my interpretation probably right
Re-read the archiving dispatch ....
I have read it a few times, no where does it say the parents are innocent, as many state, as an absolute fact that can be repeated by police, judges, media, ad infinitum
In both the Napoleonic code and (our own) adversarial system, absence of intent means no crime can be committed
Pretty irrelevant least because all they have been suspected of is occultation of a body, where there cannot not be intent...
How do you hide a body without intent?
And since the McCanns were accused of murder ....
- That is what I said, you cant not have intent and
- No one accused them of murder... Please dont repeat your Harrison thing and your personal interpretation then pass it off as fact, heard it all before
The judge commented that the McCanns are innocent ...
TOTL
Mark Harrison reads up on the statements and interviews from the principal witnesses – including, of course, those of the parents and friends -, all the analyses, simulations, hypotheses and cross-checking already carried out. He carries out a reconnaissance on the ground, by helicopter and then on foot. He paces the streets and the access roads to Vila da Luz and compares them to the diagrams created in the course of the investigation. Nothing is left to chance: measurement and timing of possible routes between buildings, apartments and restaurants; analyses, with the help of the best specialists, of weather, geological and maritime factors in relation to the investigation; consultation with the best forensic anthropologist in the country, who indicates for us what would be the actual state of the body in the hypothesis of death occurring on May 3rd; study of the region’s natural carrion predators. All the research already conducted by hundreds of people – GNR, civil defence, firemen and other volunteers – is re-examined in detail and re-analysed.
After a week of intense work, Harrison presents the results of his study to my coordinating group. Even if we were expecting it, his conclusions confirm our worst fears. The most plausible scenario is the following: there is doubt that Madeleine is dead, and her body is hidden somewhere in the area around Praia da Luz. He praises there is nothe quality of the work carried out by the Portuguese authorities in trying to find the little girl alive. According to him, the time has come to redirect the searches in order to find, this time, a body hidden in the surrounding area.
I am currently of the opinion on the available information and statistical datasets that if death has occurred, that it is possible that Madeleine McCann’s body has been disposed into the sea at Praia da Luz. (See my second report entitled “NPIA OP TASK Search Doc Beach and Marine”).
Mark Harrison
Are you (slowly) starting to understand why Amaral will lose the libel trial?
When will you ever understand that this has never been a libel trial?
My Harrison thing?
I am repeating what's written in the files.
Read Harrison's terms of reference.
He was handed a brief, by the PJ, to investigate that Madeleine had been murdered and did so.
Harrison's own, personal, conclusion was inconclusive. He formed no firm opinion about what might have happened to Madeleine.
He also stressed that no inference could be drawn from the reactions of the dogs.
It's all in the files ....
Yes, it IS your Harrison Amaral ""thing"
FACT remains Amaral or anyne else never accused the Mccanns of murder, its all in your imagnation
Anyway, off topic ...lets wait and see how the appeal (that you said could not or would not happen) pans out hey?
Ferryman you sound like a stuck record, and not a single person supports your view, nuff said, youre entitled to your opinion but you are NOT entited to pass it off as fact, im out of this so called theory, its boring
- That is what I said, you cant not have intent and
- No one accused them of murder... Please dont repeat your Harrison thing and your personal interpretation then pass it off as fact, heard it all before
I haven't expressed a view.
I've stated facts.
But my rapidly dwindling stamina won't allow me to keep this up.
So I'll leave you to it ...
Would that be Harrison thing or Harrison Thyng?
https://www.google.co.uk/#q=harrison+thyng
8(0(*
Facts can be manipulated...there is no connection that I can see between Amaral asking Harrison to investigating a murder scenario and where a body might be and accusing their parents of a murder which is what you are trying to push
It is instructive to contrast the preface to the report prepared by Mark Harrison, (4th Paragraph) where he says that "this report solely considers the possibility that Madeleine has been murdered......etc.....other scenarios or possibilites may on request be considered an be the subject of a further report
http://www.mccannfiles.com/id293.html
and Amaral's interpretation
except from his book
"After a week of intense work, Harrison presents the results of his study to my coordinating group. Even if we were expecting it, his conclusions confirm our worst fears. The most plausible scenario is the following: there is no doubt that Madeleine is dead, and her body is hidden somewhere in the area around Praia da Luz. He praises the quality of the work carried out by the Portuguese authorities in trying to find the little girl alive. According to him, the time has come to redirect the searches in order to find, this time, a body hidden in the surrounding area."
http://goncaloamaraltruthofthelie.blogspot.co.uk/search?updated-max=2009-06-08T14:18:00-07:00&max-results=1
Ch 16, Para 4
So lets see
The PJ Coordinator commissions a report solely to consider the possibility that Madeleine has been murdered and her her body concealed.
Mark Harrison produces the report, saying that this only deals with one possibility and other scenarios or possibilities can be considered on request.
Amaral then takes that report as expert evidence that Madeleine has been murdered and her body concealed etc.
_______
Words fail me.
It is instructive to contrast the preface to the report prepared by Mark Harrison, (4th Paragraph) where he says that "this report solely considers the possibility that Madeleine has been murdered......etc.....other scenarios or possibilites may on request be considered an be the subject of a further report
http://www.mccannfiles.com/id293.html
and Amaral's interpretation
except from his book
"After a week of intense work, Harrison presents the results of his study to my coordinating group. Even if we were expecting it, his conclusions confirm our worst fears. The most plausible scenario is the following: there is no doubt that Madeleine is dead, and her body is hidden somewhere in the area around Praia da Luz. He praises the quality of the work carried out by the Portuguese authorities in trying to find the little girl alive. According to him, the time has come to redirect the searches in order to find, this time, a body hidden in the surrounding area."
http://goncaloamaraltruthofthelie.blogspot.co.uk/search?updated-max=2009-06-08T14:18:00-07:00&max-results=1
Ch 16, Para 4
So lets see
The PJ Coordinator commissions a report solely to consider the possibility that Madeleine has been murdered and her her body concealed.
Mark Harrison produces the report, saying that this only deals with one possibility and other scenarios or possibilities can be considered on request.
Amaral then takes that report as expert evidence that Madeleine has been murdered and her body concealed etc.
_______
Words fail me.
Why do words fail you?.
Change the names to Joe Bloggs and Jim Crudd who have been having a legal todo. Each writes a book to put his side. Joe will write to show himself in the best light and Jim in the worst light according to what line each is attempting to peddle. Ditto with it the Jim and Joe way around. No surprises there.
This is interesting though:
Madeleine McCann Search Decision Support Document
"The reconnaissance undertaken and this report has been completed at the direct request and benefit of Guillhemino Encamacao the Algarve Regional Director of the Portuguese Judicial Police"
http://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/PJ/MARK_HARRISON.htm
No mention by name of Boogah Man I that I can see.
Why do words fail you?.
Change the names to Joe Bloggs and Jim Crudd who have been having a legal todo. Each writes a book to put his side. Joe will write to show himself in the best light and Jim in the worst light according to what line each is attempting to peddle. Ditto with it the Jim and Joe way around. No surprises there.
This is interesting though:
Madeleine McCann Search Decision Support Document
"The reconnaissance undertaken and this report has been completed at the direct request and benefit of Guillhemino Encamacao the Algarve Regional Director of the Portuguese Judicial Police"
http://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/PJ/MARK_HARRISON.htm
No mention by name of Boogah Man I that I can see.
More pertinent, Alice, would be to change the names to Detective Inspector Joe Bloggs, and Mr and Mrs Jim Crudd whose case his he has been investigating. He uses a report as part of his book accusing them of criminal activity even though the case hasnot resulted in an arrest, let alone a conviction.
It comes to light that the report only covers a very specific scenario yet he has based most of his "case" against Mr and Mrs Crudd on the conclusions reached in that report - Both ploce case and his book.
Ex Detective Inspector Joe Bloggs is left with egg on face and a hefty bill.
The other party has the real hefty bill.
That goes without saying of course. Never one to miss an opportunity, eh, Stephen.
Its sad though that the Ex Cop chose to compound the parents anguish by writing his libelous book.
Nope, anymore than you.
As to the parents anguish, crime remains unknown.
Well given that over the past 7 years, and Portugal's finest doing their damdest to pin something on Madeleines parents (not to mention a veritable host of the most highly qualified internet investigators) and failing, I suggest whoever did the crime it aint them.
More pertinent, Alice, would be to change the names to Detective Inspector Joe Bloggs, and Mr and Mrs Jim Crudd whose case his he has been investigating. He uses a report as part of his book accusing them of criminal activity even though the case hasnot resulted in an arrest, let alone a conviction.
It comes to light that the report only covers a very specific scenario yet he has based most of his "case" against Mr and Mrs Crudd on the conclusions reached in that report - Both ploce case and his book.
Ex Detective Inspector Joe Bloggs is left with egg on face and a hefty bill.
Liberally seasoned with words like hypothesis and plausible scenario.
Maybe he will get the shaft who knows. My point remains, do you seriously expect either book to be anything other than an exercise to show the author in the best light and the opposing party in the worst light?
I don't, and would take the contents of either book with bushels of salt on that basis.
amaral does not talk about hyoptheses...he says Maddie died in the apartment.....ne says maddie's body was in the hire car...he states these things as facts
Not according to the link J-P posted.
Either you are wrong and the link is hookey or vicky verky.
Not according to the link J-P posted.Chapter 22:
Either you are wrong and the link is hookey or vicky verky.
The conclusions my team and I have arrived at are the following:
1. The minor, Madeleine McCann died inside apartment 5A of the Ocean Club in Vila da Luz, on the night of May 3rd 2007;
He says that too. Full of theories he is. The Harrison episode is a good example of his hopelessly muddled thinking.
The appellate court decided his conclusions / interpretations were logically and solidly built based on the evidence, so whats your problem? Do you know better than the judges?there's also something called libel
They also said the archiving report by the public prosecutor was not written in stone.
There is such a thing in this world called having a different opinion.....the alternative is fascism, despotism and the rest.....
He says that too. Full of theories he is. The Harrison episode is a good example of his hopelessly muddled thinking.
Chapter 22:
No hypothesis mentioned.
Try reading the whole book Alf, it is strewn with caveats. Which was the point of my post.So I can disregard the conclusion then (which is unequivocal), is that what you're telling me?
So I can disregard the conclusion then (which is unequivocal), is that what you're telling me?
242 pages and almost 7 months since the opening post of this thread, and still no official confirmation of Amaral's appeal.
Why is that?
The part of the "conclusion" you quote was actually postulated by DCI Andy in his usual all round The Wrekin syntax.
There are ten points to the summary and conclusion in Sr Amarals book why skint yourself on just one bit?. I guess counting is not your long suit.
Hang on a minute.
Davel said that Amaral stated as fact that Madeleine died in the apartment.
You said "not according to the link provided"
I posted proof from his idiotic book that he DID state as FACT that Madeleine died in the apartment.
You claimed it was just a hypothesis.
I proved it was part of his conclusion, no equivocation.
I can count thanks, and I can count on you to muddy the waters as usual.
The 'honest opinion' defence will replace the 'fair comment' defence when the Defamation Act 2013 comes into force.
It can be used as a defence to defamation claims if the defendant can show (i) that the statement in question was an opinion, (ii) that within the statement there was an apparent basis to the opinion and (iii) the statement is one that an honest person could have held.
A person claiming defamation can defeat this defence if they can demonstrate that the author of the statement complained about did not hold the opinion.
In the UK we have...Thanks but that is totally irrelevant to the point I was making in my post, in response to Alice.
Hang on a minute.
Davel said that Amaral stated as fact that Madeleine died in the apartment.
You said "not according to the link provided"
I posted proof from his idiotic book that he DID state as FACT that Madeleine died in the apartment.
You claimed it was just a hypothesis.
I proved it was part of his conclusion, no equivocation.
I can count thanks, and I can count on you to muddy the waters as usual.
Davel said "he [Amaral] states these things as facts".You are categorically wrong. On the subject of the death in the apartment, Amaral concludes that Madeleine died there because of his firm belief in the accuracy of the dog alerts. No hypothesis, no equivocation.
He doesn't not. He says "The conclusions my team and I have arrived at are the following:".
As no one can prove one way or another what happened what is any conclusion other than a hypothesis at this junction as yer might say.
Muddy Waters cool dude.
You are categorically wrong. On the subject of the death in the apartment, Amaral concludes that Madeleine died there because of his firm belief in the accuracy of the dog alerts. No hypothesis, no equivocation.
If memory serves right, he does hedge it slightly, with words such as probably, which certainly in terms of English libel law, mitigates the libel not one jot.
All ought to be bad news for Amaral's appeal ....
If you are going to use English law (not sure why) you may as well at least acknowledge it has come closer to current Portuguese law vis a vis as Slarti posted abovePer
The 'honest opinion' defence will replace the 'fair comment' defence when the Defamation Act 2013 comes into force.
It can be used as a defence to defamation claims if the defendant can show (i) that the statement in question was an opinion, (ii) that within the statement there was an apparent basis to the opinion and (iii) the statement is one that an honest person could have held.
A person claiming defamation can defeat this defence if they can demonstrate that the author of the statement complained about did not hold the opinion.
Amaral will win his appeal...good stuff....
So you are quoting English libel law to come to the conclusion that amaral will win his not libel case in a Portuguese court .....
Strange how various supporters have been using English Libel laws to suggest GA is guilty of libel in PT and now his defence in English Libel Law is shown it is suddenly not applicable because the current damages trial is in PT.
Strange how various supporters have been using English Libel laws to suggest GA is guilty of libel in PT and now his defence in English Libel Law is shown it is suddenly not applicable because the current damages trial is in PT.even stranger how most sceptics are adamant this case is nothing whatsoever to do with libel, so what are you on about anyway?
Strange how various supporters have been using English Libel laws to suggest GA is guilty of libel in PT and now his defence in English Libel Law is shown it is suddenly not applicable because the current damages trial is in PT.
It isn't really rocket science, the trial was held in Portugal and the word difamação (defamation) wasn't used once.
and others might say ..if it walks like a duck....it is described by the Portuguese press as a defemation trial....but what would they know. What looks good for the McCanns is that amaral has broken specific Portuguese laws that look quite clear cut...it may well be his appeal is against his sentence rather than the actual judgement
Why not simply wait for the judgement and any subsequent appeals ?
why not simply wait for the judgement re maddie rather than spending every day slagging off the parents
the point of my post is that mercury was doing this so I don't know which supporters you are talking about
No, sunshne, get it right, it was ferryman who invoked english libel law for some unfathomable reason....
Try again.
Slartibarfast (post number 3622 of this thread) who introduced English libel law into the discussion.
Since you keep stating it was libel you can only be referring to English Law because libel has been legally discounted in Portugal.
What are the damages awarded for then?
Well it wasn't libel.then tell us what the damages were awarded for.
Not libel
As decreed by the judges at the appelate court years ago...to think a lower court could overrride a higher court is silly
where did the appellate court state it was considering libel...it didn't
Seeing as the mccanns action was a libel writ and the lower courts decision was overturned its as simple as abc...you dont have to be einstein lol, whch obviously you are not by any stretch.
so the mccanns action is now a libel writ...the appellate court did not even consider libel...I'm not Einstein...he died some years agoNo, it is not NOW, it always has been, the very fact that the upper court threw out the lower courts decision is testament to the fact they had no case in any way shape or form
No, it is not NOW, it always has been, the very fact that the upper court threw out the lower courts decision is testament to the fact they had no case in any way shape or form
Yes you are not einstein even though you attempt to portray yourself as him or something similar...millions of miles away always, its an insult to the man at best
well they have no case according to yet have been awarded an absolute fortune...think you are mistaken.....
Yes they can rejoice, jump for joy, be happy and smug but still ...erm wait a minute did someone mention how happy Maddie would be at her paretns doing ALLA this for her? or does her body lie alone someplace?
but at least her parents have been awared lots of cash wheyyyyyyyyyyyy heyyyyyyyyyyy whoope de doops. Gosh money they would never have made without their daughter disappearing...um, oh, yeah.
what an absolutely ridiculous reply
Yes they can rejoice, jump for joy, be happy and smug but still ...erm wait a minute did someone mention how happy Maddie would be at her paretns doing ALLA this for her? or does her body lie alone someplace?
but at least her parents have been awared lots of cash wheyyyyyyyyyyyy heyyyyyyyyyyy whoope de doops. Gosh money they would never have made without their daughter disappearing...um, oh, yeah.
Does anyone know on what date MFLNSU Ltd stopped funding Duarte legal expenses?
Does anyone know if PJGA have actually paid any of Amaral's legal expenses?PJGA have stated that they have.
PJGA have stated that they have.
What else would they do with the money raised - their one and only object, clearly stated, is to pay Mr Amaral's legal expenses.
Meanwhile it is a complete mystery who is now paying Sra Duarte - MFLNSU Ltd are no longer doing so - and it's not even in their stated objects - so who is?
Not libel
As decreed by the judges at the appelate court years ago...to think a lower court could overrride a higher court is silly
Good grief!
Is there really still confusion over the (entirely separate and unrelated) dispute over the injunction and the libel trial, concluded (in favour of the McCanns) last April?
PJGA have stated that they have.
What else would they do with the money raised - their one and only object, clearly stated, is to pay Mr Amaral's legal expenses.
Meanwhile it is a complete mystery who is now paying Sra Duarte - MFLNSU Ltd are no longer doing so - and it's not even in their stated objects - so who is?
Round 1 10:9 McCann:Amaral
Round 2 ?
Round 3 ?
I shan't quibble with the questionmarks ....
You don't think round one was scored 10:9 then?
I incline to the view that the gap was a little wider than that ....
Round 1 10:9 McCann:Amaral
Round 2 ?
Round 3 ?
from what I can see the only action amaral won was the one the mccanns did not contend
I am only talking about the "libel trial". What are you talking about ?
the mccanns won the libel trialThere is one round, at least, to go in that fight.
There is one round, at least, to go in that fight.
After round one the score is 10:9 in favour of McCann.
I am only talking about the "libel trial". What are you talking about ?
The action named 5 people. Two of them got a payout, three didn't. It also mentioned harm done to the search for Madeleine - not proven.
The action named 5 people. Two of them got a payout, three didn't. It also mentioned harm done to the search for Madeleine - not proven.
the mccanns won the libel trial
Amaral didn't libel Madeleine or the twins ....
Seems team McCann need telling about that;that doesn't claim the children were libelled, only that they were damaged by the libels their parents suffered. I thought you were supposed to be reasonably intelligent?
In a statement issued by their family spokesman, Clarence Mitchell, they said: “We are delighted with the judge’s verdict today. We want to emphasise the action was never about money. It was entirely focused on the effect of the libels on our other children and the damage that was done to the search for Madeleine.
http://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2015/apr/28/madeleine-mccann-parents-win-libel-damages-goncalo-amaral-trial
that doesn't claim the children were libelled, only that they were damaged by the libels their parents suffered. I thought you were supposed to be reasonably intelligent?
On how many counts did they fail to win in court ?
How were their 'other' children damaged then? what about the 'search' comment?
How were their 'other' children damaged then? what about the 'search' comment?well, let's see. Imagine you're a child and you read that your parents hid your sister's body and lied about it to all and sundry. Then imagine your school friends got hold of this story and teased you about it, now would that cause you any damage to you as a child, or do you think they should have grown a thicker skin and just manned up to it?
How were their 'other' children damaged then? what about the 'search' comment?RE: the "search" comment, Kate and Gerry believed that the search for Madeleine was damaged by Amaral's propaganda campaign against them. That is a reasonablr belief to hold in my view.
bit like saying you came second in a boxing match
that doesn't claim the children were libelled, only that they were damaged by the libels their parents suffered. I thought you were supposed to be reasonably intelligent?
so it seems to you the mccanns lost the trial about 8 to 2...makes you wonder why amaral is apppealing
so you don't understand how the twins would be damaged by libel against their parents
Thank you Alfred.
But I suspect that some people would find it hard to understand that putting it about that the McCanns killed their elder sister, then covered up her death and fabricated an abduction would have an effect on the twins .....
Seems team McCann need telling about that;
In a statement issued by their family spokesman, Clarence Mitchell, they said: “We are delighted with the judge’s verdict today. We want to emphasise the action was never about money. It was entirely focused on the effect of the libels on our other children and the damage that was done to the search for Madeleine.
http://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2015/apr/28/madeleine-mccann-parents-win-libel-damages-goncalo-amaral-trial
Why would Clarence Mitchell say that about the children and the search? The judge stated in her decision that it was not proven that the book had harmed the other children nor had it harmed the search for Madeleine. Talk about out and out lying.
the judge stated it had not been proven...not that the search hadnt been harmed...that is a fact
That's the same as someone being found not guilty and people saying that they may be?
Thank you Alfred.
But I suspect that some people would find it hard to understand that putting it about that the McCanns killed their elder sister, then covered up her death and fabricated an abduction would have an effect on the twins .....
Do you think the money their parents may get will make the children feel better? Banning the book doesn't help, because Amaral isn't the only one saying their parents were involved either.Money was never the most important thing...stopping the lies was and the mcccanns have been totally successful in stopping amaral and stripping him of his ill gotten gains
Money was never the most important thing...stopping the lies was and the mcccanns have been totally successful in stopping amaral and stripping him of his ill gotten gainsThe book is obtainable on that tinternet and Sr Amaral has appealed. No lasting result yet.
The book is obtainable on that tinternet and Sr Amaral has appealed. No lasting result yet.
never said there was a lasting result...would you not agree that amaral must feel totally humiliated by the judgement of his own countries court
Why? the "bill" started at £1.2MM and it's now down to £500k. There was the issue that the book impeded the search the judge said it didn't. Sr Amaral was given leave to appeal. So far so good.
I would be p****d off that I didn't get a KO in round one but still the fight goes on. See what the scorecards say at the end of the bout. Had he started the court case and lost then maybe he would feel humiliated but he's there by invitation at the behest of others.
the judge never said the book did not harm the search.......but I'm a stickler for accuracy and detail
amaral invited the mccanns to sue him...so the mccanns are there at his request
I can see why sceptics such as yourself try to spin the result...it must be devastating for amaral
So who says they killed her?
Good grief!
Is there really still confusion over the (entirely separate and unrelated) dispute over the injunction and the libel trial, concluded (in favour of the McCanns) last April?
The judge said to Gerald Mccann that the case was not about establishng if the book contents were true or not but only to establsh if the defendant's right to freedom of expression impeded on the plaintiffs' rights....so how is it a libel trial if the issue of truth of statements was not a relevant factor?
I'm quite certain the judge didn't confuse proceedings over the injunction (which is what you describe above) with the libel trial (which she presided over).
Not sure what you mean. Read towards the end.
http://miscarriageofjustice.co/index.php?topic=4746.0
Goncalo Amaral.
In summary, that's why he lost the libel trial
That's Anne Guide's summary, isn't it?
Didn't she get somewhat muddled with Alan Pike's testimony to the court?
Why ? he hasn't lost anything yet.
It may be devastating in due course depending on the final score.
Your speculation is it must be devastating for him because you want it to be. That is just your unsubstantiated opinion.
what has he lost as yet...access to his own money......his own countries court has supported the mccannns...fact...
if you don't think he's devastated you are a banana
The case isn't over yet.
The McCann's have nothing but ongoing legal bills, as I predicted.
and amaral lost as I predicted..
Please provide a cite for that.
The case isn't over.
How many points in court, did the McCann's fail to prove ?
He lost that hearing as I predicted
Has he appealed against the judgement or the sentence
Please provide a cite for that.
I'm not repeating the libel over here.
But read chapter 4 of his book in conjunction with the summary.
The clear inference is that there was an overdose of calpol causing a "tragic accident" (falling off a sofa) and death.
If he'd left it at "falling off a sofa" (for which there is zero evidence) at least he wouldn't have accused the McCanns of killing Madeleine.
I'm not repeating the libel over here.
But read chapter 4 of his book in conjunction with the summary.
The clear inference is that there was an overdose of calpol causing a "tragic accident" (falling off a sofa) and death.
If he'd left it at "falling off a sofa" (for which there is zero evidence) at least he wouldn't have accused the McCanns of killing Madeleine.
No, doesn't cut it. In fact that is your inference.
I'm not repeating the libel over here.
But read chapter 4 of his book in conjunction with the summary.
The clear inference is that there was an overdose of calpol causing a "tragic accident" (falling off a sofa) and death.
If he'd left it at "falling off a sofa" (for which there is zero evidence) at least he wouldn't have accused the McCanns of killing Madeleine.
To play devils advocate, how are you in any position to state it IS libel? Rather than you just believe it is.
There is zero evidence to support any of it.
What doesn't "cut" what?
It means you are adding 2 + 2 and making sure the answer is 5 because it suits your preconceptions. You take a paragraph in chapter 4 and a conclusion in chapter 22 and create a libel all by yourself.
Nope.
Amaral did that, not me.
That's (one!) of the reasons why he lost the libel trial.
Let's have the cite you seem to think exists.
Could you just provide a cite for where the McCanns have made an appeal for money to fund their legal fees for the action against Amaral? Thanks.
what has he lost as yet...access to his own money......his own countries court has supported the mccannns...fact...
if you don't think he's devastated you are a banana
Could you just provide a cite for where the McCanns have made an appeal for money to fund their legal fees for the action against Amaral? Thanks.Yes. Source is the directors' report for the year ended 31 March 2010
Yes. Source is the directors' report for the year ended 31 March 2010
"... we have ... continued to pay for legal representation ... to obtain an injunction banning Mr Amaral from ..."
Yes. Source is the directors' report for the year ended 31 March 2010They had the luxury of saying if they wanted to kit was from libel payments not donations.not that it was proved
"... we have ... continued to pay for legal representation ... to obtain an injunction banning Mr Amaral from ...
They had the luxury of saying if they wanted to kit was from libel payments not donations.not that it was provedThey accepted donations to fund searching and spent some of that money on obtaining an injunction against the book because they said the book was harming the search.
His funds were sequestered before this trial started.the banana reference was made by Ian Hislop...educated at Oxford...if he's not well educated then I'm a banana
His country's own courts have yet to finish ruling.
I am a banana?
You would appear not to be as well educated as you would have us all believe if your vocabulary is such that you can only find puerile comments to make.
Oh dear. It seems it a case of 'and some fell on stony ground' in your case, Alice.Is he one of Sr Amaral's aides?
The banana reference related to one Hislop I.
Is he one of Sr Amaral's aides?
No comment from you on the rest of the post then J-P ? on that basis one must assume you have have no argument with it.
No he's a very well educated TV personality but as he has never been on coronation st it seems neither you or any of the sceptic community have heard of him
As you can find nothing sensible to say I presume you agree with rest of the post as well?
Like Amaral's country's courts remain in deliberation among other things.
we don't know...we know he has appealed...but against the sentence or the judgement. The wording judgement shows to me he has little grounds for appeal...but it seems appeal is automatic even if there is little or no chance of successWill we ever know if his appeal was unsuccessful I wonder...?
Will we ever know if his appeal was unsuccessful I wonder...?
Oh I'm sure Miss Duarte will have it all over the internet in double quick time.good to know we can rely on someone to keep us informed 😊
good to know we can rely on someone to keep us informed 😊
Absolutely!
I wonder if it will be similar to last time.
Depends on the result I suppose.
Let's hope amaral is stopped once and for all. Despite his posturing it seems he may have nowhere else to go if this verdict is unfavourable to him...as I expect it to be
Where havevthe mccanns or their supporters made an appeal for funds to pay for their legal fees?By setting up the MFLNSU official website asking for donations to fund searching.
By setting up the MFLNSU official website asking for donations to fund searching.
Part of those donations received as a result of that appeal to fund searching were used on the legal costs of obtaining the injunction against Mr Amaral (source: CH = Companies House) and also to pay for witnesses to fly out to Lisbon (source: CH).
This was quite reasonably treated as complying with the "searching" objective, the argument was that the book (and film) were preventing searching taking place (source: CH)
And now the Portuguese judge has said the book and documentary didn't harm the search I wonder what will be the justification for using the fund now ?
And now the Portuguese judge has said the book and documentary didn't harm the search I wonder what will be the justification for using the fund now ?
And now the Portuguese judge has said the book and documentary didn't harm the search I wonder what will be the justification for using the fund now ?To be fair IMO the fund is not now financing this legal case.
To be fair IMO the fund is not now financing this legal case.
While they were funding it they stated so clearly (source CH).
To be fair IMO the fund is not now financing this legal case.
While they were funding it they stated so clearly (source CH).
How much time had elapsed between the original writ being issued & the judge making her decision? What period of time do you think any decision was based on?
The judge said the book had never damaged the search. Not when the writ was issued, not when their PIs were 'investigating', not when SY took over, never, so yet again I'm not sure what your point is misty
Was her view an overall view of a 5 year period or specifically related to the position regarding the lack of police involvement at the time the writ was issued?
The lack of police involvement was nothing to do with the book misty so I'm not entirely sure what you mean.
Did the book not epitomise why there was a lack of police involvement at that particular time & thus emphasize why further searching would prove fruitless?
Did they ?Yes I already gave an example where they clearly stated they were paying
So who do you think was financing their litigation when it wasn't specifically stated that the fund was ?I don't know who is paying now.
There was a lack of police involvement because the case was archived which had nothing to do with the book or Amaral. I'm f that was the case then Rebelo would be just as culpable.I believe the actual wording was NOT PROVEN, rather than a categorical rejection that the book had damaged the search. No doubt you will correct me if I'm wrong....
I think you've got things a little mixed up in your head misty. The judge stated that the book had not damaged the search AT ALL, not simply when the writ was issued. I think you may have to go back to the trial transcripts and read them again as you seem to be rather confused.
Yes I already gave an example where they clearly stated they were paying
"... we have ... continued to pay for legal representation ... to obtain an injunction banning Mr Amaral from ..." (source: accounts for year 2009-2010 you can read at CH site)I don't know who is paying now.
Yes I already gave an example where they clearly stated they were paying
"... we have ... continued to pay for legal representation ... to obtain an injunction banning Mr Amaral from ..." (source: accounts for year 2009-2010 you can read at CH site)I don't know who is paying now.
For the financial year March 2013- March 2014 they paid £ 13,256 for hotels, subsistence and travel. The directors say this was for witnesses to attend the trial in Portugal. The expenditure is justified because 'Amaral's book and video caused vast damage to the search for Madeleine in Portugal'. There was an amount of £ 8,402 for legal fees and expenses which could also relate to the trial, but it doesn't say so.
http://www.mccannfiles.com/id501.html
the fund is none of your business
Your concern over how the McCanns are going to pay their lawyers is very touching. So let me reassure you that you really do not need to worry.
the McCcanns have raised this money....Kates book...the libel payouts. there is a lot of talk about freedom on this forum and it seems that's all it is...talk. its up to the mccanns how they spend the fund...as long as they keep within the aims...either mind your own business or inform the relevant authorities
Not strictly correct. The fund is in the form of a limited company, and as such members of the public have a legitimate concern as to the financial results as reported.
But it is the responsibility of the directors to run the company, and report accordingly. Members of the public have no say in this, unless they are shareholders or directors.
it is no business of anyone on here...I run a ltd company....that's no ones business either
Accounts filed at Company's House are available to the public. Anyone can download, read and comment on them. It's the price you pay for limited liability. To keep your accounts private you have to be a sole trader or partnership and accept liability in full.
still doesn't make it any of your business...but you seem to have delved deep into their lives....quite unnatural in my opinion
Yet you are doing exactly the same. 8(>((
the McCcanns have raised this money....Kates book...the libel payouts. there is a lot of talk about freedom on this forum and it seems that's all it is...talk. its up to the mccanns how they spend the fund...as long as they keep within the aims...either mind your own business or inform the relevant authorities
Once the money is in "The Fund's" bank account it belongs to the limited company. Consequently it is the responsibility of the company directors how the funds are used. Drs McCann are but two of the directors and could conceivably be outvoted by the rest.
it is no business of anyone on here...I run a ltd company....that's no ones business either
have they been outvoted
I would love to be a fly on the wall when you tried to tell The Registrar that.
That does not address the issue.
It is up to the board of directors NOT the McCanns.
of course it is...so why are posters on here only criticising the mccanns and not the other directors
I believe the actual wording was NOT PROVEN, rather than a categorical rejection that the book had damaged the search. No doubt you will correct me if I'm wrong....
so I need to say no ones business on here....as long as I stick to the rules it is no ones business...what I see on here is a lot of interfering busybodies
If it could have been proven the McCanns would have proved it, surely ?It does make one wonder what the difference is in practical terms.
It does make one wonder what the difference is in practical terms.As you are something of a pedant when it comes to the written word (particularly when that word is written by a member of the McCann supporter community) surely you can see that there is some practical difference between the following two assertions:
If it could have been proven the McCanns would have proved it, surely ?
If it could have been proven the McCanns would have proved it, surely ?
It is the business of The Registrar period. He has the authority to check up on you. If you are running a limited company, as you say, I would suggest it might be in your interests to determine precisely what your responsibilities and liabilities are before you get much older.
As you are something of a pedant when it comes to the written word (particularly when that word is written by a member of the McCann supporter community) surely you can see that there is some practical difference between the following two assertions:
The judge stated that the book had not damaged the search AT ALL
The judge stated that damage to the search caused by the book was UNPROVEN.
still doesn't make it any of your business...but you seem to have delved deep into their lives....quite unnatural in my opinion
Looking at a company's accounts doesn't involve delving into anyone's lives. It involves looking at the accounts of a limited company which is a legal entity in it's own right, but it's not a person.
How are you aware Kate didn't complete GP training and doesn't have a licence to practice
I used my intelligence and found out using information freely available online to the general public. I expect you, with your superior intelligence, could do the same.
I find it strange you have delved so deeply into Kates career
As you are something of a pedant when it comes to the written word (particularly when that word is written by a member of the McCann supporter community) surely you can see that there is some practical difference between the following two assertions:
The judge stated that the book had not damaged the search AT ALL
The judge stated that damage to the search caused by the book was UNPROVEN.
I used my intelligence and found out using information freely available online to the general public. I expect you, with your superior intelligence, could do the same.
Kate is on the GP's register, but not currently licensed to practice, no doubt because she has chosen another career path, but if she were to (choose to!) update her training, no doubt she could resume her medical career.
It's all a question of career choices, nothing else.
Kate is on the GP's register, but not currently licensed to practice, no doubt because she has chosen another career path, but if she were to (choose to!) update her training, no doubt she could resume her medical career.
It's all a question of career choices, nothing else.
I wouldn't called being unemployed a career path.
By jove he's got it!; I think he's got it.I got that you're only here to take the piss out of McCann supporters a long time ago - what made you think I only just got it?!
When I have recovered from the shock I will respond properly.
Well, I feel ferryman thinks it is.
I am puzzled too, about who Gunit apparently "knows" that Kate didn't complete her GP training.
Given that she was listed on the GP Register when it was introduced.
G-Unit has taken the fact that Kate is not (currently) licensed to practise (true!) as "evidence", even "proof?", (it isn't!) that Kate didn't complete her GP training.
Kate's licence to practise has just lapsed because she has chosen another career path.
I wouldn't called being unemployed a career path.Does she sign on then?
Perhaps it's his chosen 'career path' too?
Does she sign on then?
Does she have a job ?Yes, she is a housewife I believe, who does unpaid voluntary charity work for Missing People in her spare time, when she's not being an author and spear-heading the campaign to get her daughter back.
Yes, she is a housewife I believe, who does unpaid voluntary charity work for Missing People in her spare time, when she's not being an author and spear-heading the campaign to get her daughter back.
Yes, she is a housewife I believe, who does unpaid voluntary charity work for Missing People in her spare time, when she's not being an author and spear-heading the campaign to get her daughter back.
Does she have work that pays her a wage, because if not she is unemployed by any definition of the word ?So, anyone who doesn't get paid a wage is unemployed are they? Interesting... So JK Rowling is unemployed then?
What campaign would that be.
Nothing is happening.
Does she have a job ?
unemployed
ʌnɪmˈplɔɪd,-ɛm-/
adjective
(of a person) without a paid job but available to work.
"I was unemployed for three months"
synonyms: jobless, out of work, out of a job, not working, between jobs, workless, unwaged, unoccupied, idle; More
(of a thing) not in use.
"you have to put your left foot under the clutch when it is unemployed"
Be fair Stephen. Their Facebook page doesn't run itself.......erm sorry scrub that, she doesn't run that either, does she ?
I am puzzled too, about who Gunit apparently "knows" that Kate didn't complete her GP training.
Given that she was listed on the GP Register when it was introduced.
Locum GP's are required to be on the GP's register. If you can find a three year opportunity for studying between Kate leaving her job as an anesthetist and April 2007 be my guest. Janet Kennedy said she didn't return to work after having Madeleine, then they had a year in Amsterdam, then she had a year off after having the twins in February 2005.
http://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/PJ/JANNET-KENNEDY.htm
Specialist training in general practice - this stage takes around three years to complete and is split between supervised training in a GP practice and working in a hospital. You can specialise in a number of medical fields, including general medicine, paediatrics, cardiology and palliative medicine. - See more at: https://nationalcareersservice.direct.gov.uk/advice/planning/jobprofiles/Pages/doctor-gp.aspx#sthash.ZYHdYj9O.dpuf
why is any of this important
None of your business!
Sorry, mods, but that's what he tends to say to me.
None of your business!
Sorry, mods, but that's what he tends to say to me.
so its not important
Locum GP's are required to be on the GP's register. If you can find a three year opportunity for studying between Kate leaving her job as an anesthetist and April 2007 be my guest. Janet Kennedy said she didn't return to work after having Madeleine, then they had a year in Amsterdam, then she had a year off after having the twins in February 2005.
http://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/PJ/JANNET-KENNEDY.htm
Specialist training in general practice - this stage takes around three years to complete and is split between supervised training in a GP practice and working in a hospital. You can specialise in a number of medical fields, including general medicine, paediatrics, cardiology and palliative medicine. - See more at: https://nationalcareersservice.direct.gov.uk/advice/planning/jobprofiles/Pages/doctor-gp.aspx#sthash.ZYHdYj9O.dpuf
(snip)... The issue being judged was :Surely you cannot be claiming that those legal proceedings which some supposedly expert paid lawyers initiated on behalf of 3 minors all completely failed?
“The 3rd claimant [MM] was deprived of the just and appropriate investigation of her disappearance”. For which damages in the sum of five hundred thousand Euro were sought.
The ruling was:
“It was not proven that because of the defendant Goncalo Amaral's statements in the book, the documentary and the interview with the Correio da Manha, the Judicial Police had ceased to collect information and to investigate the disappearance of Madeleine McCann”
The consequence was:
“To fully dismiss the requests, made in the same action, by the claimants M... MCCANN, S... MCCANN and A... MCCANN against the defendant G... AMARAL and of those claims acquit the defendant”.
...(snip)
Surely you cannot be claiming that those legal proceedings which some supposedly expert paid lawyers initiated on behalf of 3 minors all completely failed?
I wonder what the judge would have decided about the search if that part of the writ had been dealt with back in 2010?
The book was banned.
The book was unbanned.
The book was banned again.
The investigation wasn't proven to be harmed by the book.
Award the parents of the libellous/non-libellous book record damages.
Civil justice -Portuguese style. It's akin to a soap opera.
Had the McCanns not had substantial funds/influence at their disposal, the search for Madeleine would have completely ceased well before the archiving process.
The book, in hindsight, actually did the McCanns a favour. It enabled the world to see what a pig's ear Amaral & his team had made of the original PJ investigation & why the case against the McCanns was based on lies & misrepresentations. It was a massive own goal - unless its true purpose was to prevent any case reaching trial should the perpetrator(s) ever be determined.
I wonder what the judge would have decided about the search if that part of the writ had been dealt with back in 2010?
The book was banned.
The book was unbanned.
The book was banned again.
The investigation wasn't proven to be harmed by the book.
Award the parents of the libellous/non-libellous book record damages.
Civil justice -Portuguese style. It's akin to a soap opera.
Had the McCanns not had substantial funds/influence at their disposal, the search for Madeleine would have completely ceased well before the archiving process.
The book, in hindsight, actually did the McCanns a favour. It enabled the world to see what a pig's ear Amaral & his team had made of the original PJ investigation & why the case against the McCanns was based on lies & misrepresentations. It was a massive own goal - unless its true purpose was to prevent any case reaching trial should the perpetrator(s) ever be determined.
That's an interesting perspective.
I'm not sure I entirely agree.
Certainly, those (such as you and me) who read the book objectively and properly took away that impression.
Trouble is, I suspect those who simply read the book and believed were (probably) in the majority -- of a huge audience.
You don't seem to realise that Amaral's book wasn't significant to many. I was able to spot the McCann's strange reactions and utterances for myself, for example. Even if the book had never been written people would still not believe their story. Even if they win this appeal people will not believe their story.
Surely you cannot be claiming that those legal proceedings which some supposedly expert paid lawyers initiated on behalf of 3 minors all completely failed?
I wonder what the judge would have decided about the search if that part of the writ had been dealt with back in 2010?
The book was banned.
The book was unbanned.
The book was banned again.
The investigation wasn't proven to be harmed by the book.
Award the parents of the libellous/non-libellous book record damages.
Civil justice -Portuguese style. It's akin to a soap opera.
Had the McCanns not had substantial funds/influence at their disposal, the search for Madeleine would have completely ceased well before the archiving process.
The book, in hindsight, actually did the McCanns a favour. It enabled the world to see what a pig's ear Amaral & his team had made of the original PJ investigation & why the case against the McCanns was based on lies & misrepresentations. It was a massive own goal - unless its true purpose was to prevent any case reaching trial should the perpetrator(s) ever be determined.
They didn't tell a 'story'.
They told the truth.
Not (necessarily) the unvarnished truth, because memory is fallible, and their recollection of a complex and fast-moving sequence of events (necessarily and inevitably) is not going to be perfect.
More, that disparity and imperfection (in recollection of events) will be magnified by translations and re-translations, and by statements taken in reported, rather than verbatim, form ....
But the truth to the best of their ability and the best of their recollection.
You don't seem to realise that Amaral's book wasn't significant to many. I was able to spot the McCann's strange reactions and utterances for myself, for example. Even if the book had never been written people would still not believe their story. Even if they win this appeal people will not believe their story.you are wrong to say people will not believe their story...some will and some won't. We have no way of knowing the numbers but from personal experience their version of events is believed by most poeple
you are wrong to say people will not believe their story...some will and some won't. We have no way of knowing the numbers but from personal experience their version of events is believed by most poeple
Well from personal experience I can say that while some people feel sympathy for a missing child, they don't believe their story.
Many others just don't believe them , per se.
Some others don't give a monkeys about this case.
Mind you my father believes them, then again he thinks Tony Blair is an upstanding man and a Socialist. 8(*(
very strange...almost without exception everyone I have discussed the case believes maddie was abducted
Well from personal experience I can say that while some people feel sympathy for a missing child, they don't believe their story.
Many others just don't believe them , per se.
Some others don't give a monkeys about this case.
Mind you my father believes them, then again he thinks Tony Blair is an upstanding man and a Socialist. 8(*(
very strange...almost without exception everyone I have discussed the case believes maddie was abducted
Not really dave.
Those I have discussed it with are made aware of the known facts, and what the mccanns did.
Maybe you need to get out more. 8(0(*
now I understand...they doubt the mccanns once you have given them your one sided view of your distorted facts...such as the dogs recovered human remains...now I understand
No dave, I do give them the known FACTS.
Unlike you.
yes ...as you have already said...the dogs recovered human remains...you give them the facts according to you...
No dave, I didn't tell them that.
You enjoy making things up, just like the mccanns. ?{)(**
no...you told us that.
No dave, I didn't.
You should stick to the truth dave.
No dave, I do give them the known FACTS.
Unlike you.
you did ...have you forgotten...there was quite a discussion about it
You said 'what they did' now I wonder what you are telling others I can give a guess 'they left their children alone to go drinking' 'they didn't search' 'they were laughing and joking days after Madeleine went missing' 'they had a celebrity life style zooming around the countries, wallowing in their fame' etc. etc. Am I right?
They probably just agreed with you because they were bored silly by your obsession with the McCann's.
Wrong dave.
In my discussions with other people, just the known facts.
Most as in? are you going to give us ball park figure or is this your version of collating facts? Most in the world? most in the western hemisphere?. How many people have you spoken to about this case, and what is the actual figure which covers the 'most'= majority.
If the judgement of the "libel trial"*posted on this forum is anywhere near accurate
The judge said the book didn't add anything that was not already in the released files.
She also found the following to be proved facts:
6. The British police dogs “Eddie” and “Keela” detected human blood and cadaver in the apartment 5A, Ocean Club [alínea AR) of the undisputed facts].
7. The British police dogs “Eddie” and “Keela” detected human blood and cadaver in a vehicle rented by the claimants after the disappearance of MMC [alínea AS) of the undisputed facts].
* The judge said: "In our view, the issue, in this trial, is the exercise of the right of opinion by the defendant in that context".
Then it is not accurate
How wrong can you get.
The investigation was far from perfect, just as the SY one is, in the latter even less so, as it has only looked at avenue.
More people are now aware that the abduction lacks credence, as there is no evidence to back it up.
The succession of 'images' of abductors has become increasingly laughable.
People have seen the mccanns employ incompetents to 'search' for them.
They have also seen a large amount of tax payers money go down the drain.
They have also seen the mccanns claiming leaving children by themselves as exhibiting 'responsible parenting skills'.
What is truly laughable is the mccanns story, their changing and inconsistent accounts, and their pursuit of revenge and money which is quite sickening.
IMHO of couirse.
Most as in? are you going to give us ball park figure or is this your version of collating facts? Most in the world? most in the western hemisphere?. How many people have you spoken to about this case, and what is the actual figure which covers the 'most'= majority.
Amaral was used as a cash cow a bit like their daughter. they saw a great marketing ploy and grabbed it. no judge has found amaral guilty of telling lies in his book...hmmm funny that.
Most as in? are you going to give us ball park figure or is this your version of collating facts? Most in the world? most in the western hemisphere?. How many people have you spoken to about this case, and what is the actual figure which covers the 'most'= majority.
Amaral was used as a cash cow a bit like their daughter. they saw a great marketing ploy and grabbed it. no judge has found amaral guilty of telling lies in his book...hmmm funny that.
Do us all a favour then; get hold of the one you think is accurate and have John post it in lieu of the one he has already posted.
rather a silly post...as all three statements you have made are not true then it can hardly be an accurate statement of the judgement...it doesn't take much to work that out
It is from the court files, as you well know.
no it isn't
Well, prove us wrong.
With unadulterated cites.
Well, prove us wrong.
With unadulterated cites.
there is no proof that the dogs detected cadaver odour.......cite Martin Grime
it's from an unofficial translation of the court judgement...fact...no cite needed
rather a silly post...as all three statements you have made are not true then it can hardly be an accurate statement of the judgement...it doesn't take much to work that out
Any chance of your opinion on the yo-yoing Portuguese civil justice system which can't seem to form any sort of consistent opinion about the contents of the book, its effect on public opinion & its effect on the McCann family?
AND who are you to mock another countries justice system- who do you think you are exactly? What has this justice system ever done to you personally? Or do you just hate because the McCanns tell you to?
...but anyway regards the contents of the book. who are these people who's opinion changed due to the book? name and shame or are you just surmising?
The affect on th McCann family would have been devastating:
1. if they were guilty they would be horrified to be found out.
2. if they did not hide their daughters body after a claimed accident- they would also be horrified at such an accusation. either way they were going to be affected.
I have only done a copy and paste job from one of John's posts on The Libel Trial Proceedings Thread.
Now is your chance to shine: by implication you have said the translation of the judgement, on this site, is not accurate. Post the one that meets with your approval. That is a simple enough task for a man of your calibre.
I was asking Stephen for an on-topic response to my previous post, rather than his usual ten thousandth plus stock response of "no evidence of abduction etc etc".
Your rudeness has been noted.
My Rudeness? You are the one questioning the integrity of another country justice system. and for the ten thousandth plus times please show evidence of said abduction that stephen is quite right to ask. or is that aslo being 'rude'.
Bad manners asking Kate to answer questions about her missing daughter is also up their I guess...
and I have explained exactly why it is not accurate...cadaver odour was never proved
Miss Taken - well it would appear that there is a foundation for critisism of the Portuguese Justice System.
http://www.algarvedailynews.com/news/4994-portugal-s-justice-system-is-the-slowest-in-europe
Yes you saw it here first...
"A well run and efficient justice system is one of the key parameters that foreign investors look at when deciding where to set up shop. Currently, with Portugal at the very bottom of the list for timely resolution of cases, many will be opting for other EC countries.
but then... maybe the reasons are explained,
"Again, on the plus side the system in Portugal was judged as ‘having independence.’ = no political lobbying?
The ‘Justice in the Union Scoreboard’ showed that in 2013 no judge was transferred to other functions without his or her consent, except due to disciplinary action or reorganisation. This is used as a sign of health in any justice system.
oh dear fish blown right out of the water.
So what was this bad, nasty justice system comment about ? were you, Misty or the McCanns GOING TO open up a business in Portugal but didn;t like the independance or the Judges not being shafted if crims do not like them?
Miss Taken - well it would appear that there is a foundation for critisism of the Portuguese Justice System.
http://www.algarvedailynews.com/news/4994-portugal-s-justice-system-is-the-slowest-in-europe
http://algarvedailynews.com/news/6539-portugal-s-justice-system-is-worse-than-a-year-ago
Portugal's justice system is 'worse than a year ago'
Created: 31 August 2015
dacruzIn September 2014, the launch of the new CITIUS court case processing system failed spectacularly on take-off and remained inoperable for 44 days, while the media reported on recrimination, back-biting and zero progress in clearing the backlog of cases built up from years of inefficiency and official indifference.
The judicial reform programme, far from reforming anything, turned a poor system into a showcase of what was wrong with Portugal’s antiquated justice delivery system noted already for understaffed courts and slow justice, but now with a computer software that had failed to work and was making things worse, not better.
Many court cases vanished into a cyber black hole, other live cases were designated as pending and the massive backlog of cases rose rather than decreased, causing distress and misery for those citizens waiting for their day in court.
The head of the union of prosecutors today said, "Justice is worse today than a year ago."
In a press conference held today, António Ventinhas, president of the union of prosecutors said of the justice system that the old problems had stayed but new ones have been added with a lack of staff, judges and with a computer system that does notdo what it was supposed to do.
Ventinhas said the resulting chaos after the launch of CITIUS was due to a lack of financial resources, to which he could have added, ‘training and management.’ He did point out that the lack of planning meant that a year later the country still does not have the necessary courts, the required number of judges and the number of staff required to run the system. He added that the money spent on the computer system has not been effective.
For Ventrinhas, the blame lies squarely with the Minister of Justice, Paula Teixeira da Cruz (pictured) whose management skills have been tested to the full and found early on to be lacking.
The head of the Bar Association, Elina Fraga, commented that the reform of the judicial map simply has detered citizens from seeing justice and that CITIUS still does not work as it should be working.
More concerning there still is no explanation from the minister for the failure of CITIUS.
A report is promised ‘next month’ but is unlikely to be published before the general election on October 4th. One of the reasons for the delay in the report is that the Minister of Justice did not commission it until a full eight months after the failure of the computer system for which she resolutely refused to take the blame, despite being in charge.
The report anyway will be light on detail as rather conveniently, the CITIUS computer problems preclude a detailed analysis of the judicial reform as no statistical data on pending or completed cases can be pulled from the system.
The justice system is in a mess, those working in it are stressed and lack resources, the public are less able to access the system due to travel and cost constraints, the new computer system failed to work and still does not function as specified, the report into the failure of CITIUS has been delayed by the person responsible and the chances of justice within a plaintiff’s lifetime are as remote as ever, if not more so.
The Minister in charge has the full backing of the Prime Minister.
The time taken to resolve the civil cases analysed between 2010 and 2012 was so great that the classification for Portugal was almost off the scale with members of the public having to undergo waits of between 900 and 1,100 days before cases were concluded.
The McCanns' dispute with Amaral has certainly exceeded 1,000 days and (according to some) is still unconcluded ....
It has gone to appeal, so of course it is unconcluded....??
The reason being AN IT SYSTEM fail...Yes, the IT system make a poor system worse. Try reading the article properly.
" the launch of the new CITIUS court case processing system failed spectacularly on take-off and remained inoperable for 44 days, while the media reported on recrimination, back-biting and zero progress in clearing the backlog of cases built up from years of inefficiency and official indifference".
The same can be said for our own 'justice' system and the NHS partnerships all f***ked; Due to over paid IT staff who have not got A clue.
So there you have it folks... none of this has hampered the search for Maddie OR interfered with the running of Kate N Gerrys (Illness brought on by a book).
Nice try guys... nice try.
Cases take between 900-1,100 days to conclude (meaning with all appeals heard and a definitive conclusion finally reached).
Well obviously there is something about this case that is taking double the amount of time....
Amaral's prevarications and delays?
Possibly ...
Yes of course, or the plaintiffs' trying to strike an out of court settlement...possibly!
the majority of civil cases are settled out of court. Trying to reach agreement without court action is strongly encouraged as it speeds up the process and does not use valuable court time.
the majority of civil cases are settled out of court. Trying to reach agreement without court action is strongly encouraged as it speeds up the process and does not use valuable court time.
That is precisely the course of action recommended by the judge in the case of the action brought against New Order by one of its former band members.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/law-and-order/12025791/Blue-Monday-for-New-Order-as-Peter-Hook-sues-them-for-many-millions-of-pounds.html
And the crux of the question really is, what are the Mccans doing with all the millions they have made and hoping to make....there is no way way they are all being spent directly on "search fees" as Gerald tells the world.....he must think we are all mugs
According to last published figures, spent 76% of it.
According to last published figures, spent 76% of it.
There was (apparently) a contribution to the Amaral's fund from the Metropolitan Police ...
That cannot possibly be right, not on any month of sundays!!
There was (apparently) a contribution to the Amaral's fund from the Metropolitan Police ...
Oh really? Well do excuse me for not knowing...stil, the comparison between the two funds is nothng but a pantomime act....at best
Correct ... one is audited ... the other is not.One NEEDS to be audited, the other doesnt, why does it bother you so much, millions versus a few thousand, oh i know....
The same people who insist on transparency for one are insistent the other remains secretive. So absolutely no comparison whatsoever.
One NEEDS to be audited, the other doesnt, why does it bother you so much, millions versus a few thousand, oh i know....
That sums attitudes up very well indeed. One has been legally set up to be open and above board ... the other has been set up to be in private hands and as inscrutable as Confucius.
It bothers me not at all ... but arrant hypocrisy should not pass unremarked.
Correct ... one is audited ... the other is not.
The same people who insist on transparency for one are insistent the other remains secretive. So absolutely no comparison whatsoever.
Well, actually there is an other difference. One party owning a fund due to their negligence in losing their daughter? and claiming to be transparent but isn't; is not the same as another party trying to find the said missing child which the other party lost. One has the higher of moral high grounds my dear. ALSO it wasn't Amaral himself who set up his account unlike the party who lost the child. I bet you are glad I unconfused that for you or in other plain speak.. Is that clear enough!
my point is that the person who bleats on about his human rights covered up the savage beating of a suspect in police custody...and posters think he is honourable because they do not realise this is true
So? do you believe that he is not entitled to fair representation at law because he committed perjury several years ago and has discharged his sentence in that respect ?
absolutely not but I think his supporters should be aware of the true facts of his conviction and the lies told about his actions and his views exposedSo do I . But that is not necessarily your interpretation of what happened and your posting of same.
So do I . But that is not necessarily your interpretation of what happened and your posting of same.
You will find that it is not my interpretation that is in question but the absolute lies told by amaral supporters
You will find that it is not my interpretation that is in question but the absolute lies told by amaral supporters
There have been lies on both sides dave.
so you make excuses for the lies....maddies blood found in the hire car with a pefect dna match
are you surprised...do you find it unbelievable
In Portugal there is a burden of prove to disprove allegations that lower reputation for them to be libellous.
That's the only difference, UK/Portugal.
You will find that it is not my interpretation that is in question but the absolute lies told by amaral supporters
Perhaps you would be so kind as to enumerate these including appropriate links as required by forum rules.
Your outlook on things is quite simplistic sometimes, isn't it? As far as I know there is no-one on this forum who unequivocally supports Amaral.
it is you who has a simplistic approach to the evidence....simply interpreting it in a way that supports your view...I have never said anyone unequivocally supports amaral.
You said Amaral supporters told lies. I don't see any Amaral supporters so are you referring to elsewhere on the internet? Where are the lies? Cites?
as I said a poster on here claiming amaral had been cleared and his conviction annulled ...a Portuguese poster
Davel may be referring to Luz - a Portuguese poster who posted this lie on this forum.
Quote
But you forget that the, now THIN, Inspector and his colleagues have been acquitted, since the murderer of her daughter was found and tried as a liar. And convicted for another 7 moths in prison for that.
If there was no crime how could he and his colleagues be culpable?!!! Only in your tiny thinny heads.
ReplyQuoteNotify
Unquote
IIRC Requests for confirmation that Amaral had been acquitted - and his sentence quashed - went unanswered.
We seem to have gone from the plural you posted originally down to a singular?
You said Amaral supporters told lies. I don't see any Amaral supporters so are you referring to elsewhere on the internet? Where are the lies? Cites?
Cobblers.
It is Madeleine and her siblings badly tragedy by the mccanns and no one else.
You are here only to defend the parents, and attack those who don't believe their storytelling.
The Drs McCann are key witnesses in the crime against their daughter.
In common with all witnesses who could be loosely considered to be making a pro McCann affirmation in Madeleine McCann's case they have been subject to ridicule, derision and generally traduced.
Mr Smith's uncorroborated and mistaken identification of Smithman has entered the lexicon as has Eddie's uncorroborated barking in 5A.
Weighed against the volumes of evidence gathered in this case ... these are small substitute for the defamation of the Drs McCann.
This is a matter recognised by the Portuguese courts and it remains to be seen how well or badly Goncalo Amaral's appeal may go ... it seems we will have some time to wait for the answer to that, but in the interim it is recognised world wide that the Drs McCann have won their libel case.
If you type in "libel" in Google translate you will get "difamação" ... which is the word the Portuguese press and bloggers are using in relation to the judgement. (if anyone wants a cite for that just Google it like I did ... some of the blogs are quite interesting and not all one sided)
My reading of that is that it is a situation recognised not only by the world's press but also by the Portuguese press, so it just remains to be seen what the appeal judges make of it all.
on this forum...member LUZ around the 9th august 2013...the posts are easy to find..absolute lies
The Drs McCann are key witnesses in the crime against their daughter.
In common with all witnesses who could be loosely considered to be making a pro McCann affirmation in Madeleine McCann's case they have been subject to ridicule, derision and generally traduced.
Mr Smith's uncorroborated and mistaken identification of Smithman has entered the lexicon as has Eddie's uncorroborated barking in 5A.
Weighed against the volumes of evidence gathered in this case ... these are small substitute for the defamation of the Drs McCann.
This is a matter recognised by the Portuguese courts and it remains to be seen how well or badly Goncalo Amaral's appeal may go ... it seems we will have some time to wait for the answer to that, but in the interim it is recognised world wide that the Drs McCann have won their libel case.
If you type in "libel" in Google translate you will get "difamação" ... which is the word the Portuguese press and bloggers are using in relation to the judgement. (if anyone wants a cite for that just Google it like I did ... some of the blogs are quite interesting and not all one sided)
My reading of that is that it is a situation recognised not only by the world's press but also by the Portuguese press, so it just remains to be seen what the appeal judges make of it all.
You can type until you are blue in the face, it won'y change the fact that the crime is unknown and SY have found nothing.
As to the mccanns, they and only them are responsible for what happened, until proven otherwise.
As to mccann supporters being victims of abuse. Some of them are quote happy to dish it out, though you of course have frequently denied it happens.
You can type until you are blue in the face, it won'y change the fact that the crime is unknown and SY have found nothing.
As to the mccanns, they and only them are responsible for what happened, until proven otherwise.
As to mccann supporters being victims of abuse. Some of them are quote happy to dish it out, though you of course have frequently denied it happens.
It may have escaped your notice but this thread is not about your vacuous repetition of "the crime is unknown and SY have found nothing".
In the first instance Scotland Yard and the Policia Judiciaria have decided 'the crime' is abduction ... and you ma dame do not have a scooby about the SY investigation. Which makes it very silly to pontificate.
The thread actually concerns Mr Amaral's libel or defamation of the Drs McCann for which they raised an action in the Portuguese courts.
The Drs McCann have won their case and have had damages awarded to them.
Mr Amaral has raised an appeal (he is appealing the judgement because he lost the difamação case) ... which we think may be against the amount awarded. Or who knows?
However it appears his (famous) hat may be on a very shaky peg ... it is proven in a Portuguese court that he has denied the Drs McCann their human rights, which may rather impede his further progress to the European Court to uphold his.
By the way ... I did not refer to "McCann supporters" in my post. My referral was to independent witnesses being ridiculed because their testament doesn't fit the thesis.
Are you saying the McCann's are responsible for Madeleine's disappearance Stephen?
Would she have disappeared if they were there taking care of her and her siblings ?
how is that relevant to present members and present discussions?
Who knows, children have been taken from their bed whilst the parents were in their bedroom. Indeed children had been assaulted in their beds in the are where the McCann's were staying, it would have been just as easy for the abductor to have taken one of those children.
The thing is, in the statement regarding the McCann's leaving the children, it stated that they could not and were not expected to foresee the outcome and that there was no 'intent'.
You don't believe an abduction, but the person I believe to be responsible is the abductor. Whether the children were left alone with the door open, this person had no right to go in and take Madeleine.
I predicted SY would find nothing and that is how it remains.
So I ask you, what evidence is there of abduction that can't be explained by other possibilities ?
they have found enough to say the mccanns are not suspects
they have found enough to say the mccanns are not suspects
Cite for that categorical descriptive statement?
Oh hang on, my apologies, it is off topic, but then again your post remains in here so presumably it is not off topic, or is it? Confusing hey?
It is entirely on-topic, because if the McCanns are not suspects (they are not!) and Amaral wrote a book saying the McCannsdunsomethingdreadfultoMadeleineandcovereditup (he did!) then what is the basis of Amaral's appeal (in the libel trial, concluded in April)?
It is entirely on-topic, because if the McCanns are not suspects (they are not!) and Amaral wrote a book saying the McCannsdunsomethingdreadfultoMadeleineandcovereditup (he did!) then what is the basis of Amaral's appeal (in the libel trial, concluded in April)?
They were declared not to be persons of interest in a specifc context at a specific time, fed up of typng it....never that SY have cleared them...totally different ballpark...as for Amarals appeal, and the ciurt case, it has absolutely zilch, nada, zero to what Redwood said, to think so is to be livng on cloud cuckoo land
Indeed they are not persons of interest. However it is worthwhile quoting the whole sentence just for the sake of total clarity and accuracy ...
“Neither her parents or any of the members of the group that were with her are either persons of interest or suspects” ~ DCI Andy Redwood
You changed the meanng of my post as well as choosing to ignore it
@)(++(*
You said something about the McCanns not being cleared, which is perfectly true.
The McCanns were never charged with anything, and hence don't need to be 'cleared' ....
You and others have posted several times they have been exonerated/cleared, so bit late for the semantics/backtracking
And
Suspect status is a volatile business
Not since Jean-Pierre corrected me that to be 'exonerated' you first have to be charged.always wondered why you and others were
I took on board the legal correction ....
always wondered why you and others were
concerned about legal matters when they were never topics of discussion
On a thread inviting discussion on the (dubious) contention that Amaral has 'confirmed' he will appeal the libel decision (in favour of the McCanns) to a higher court?
Why would that not be the topic of discussion?
Oh my apologies then.I WAS referring to people turninvg discussions of the case in generl to a legal one when the discussion were nothing about the law which makes me think..the mccanns were afraid of the law
Why should the Drs McCann fear the law. Any legal action they have been forced to take has been justified by a successful track record of favourable judgements.
Mr Amaral on the other hand has an abysmal record in the Portuguese law courts. He has a criminal conviction. He has lost civil cases some of which were brought against him and some of which he pursued which is perhaps part and parcel of his parlous financial state when costs awarded against him are considered.
Worth pointing out that it is the McCann success in a Portuguese court which is the subject of his appeal ... which is the subject of this thread.
Why should the Drs McCann fear the law.
Err
My post was concerning about talking about the case in general and certain people bringing in the
LAW
If they were not worried about it they wouldnt have done so!!
You mean having 58% of the claim booted out was successful?
Oh ... I didn't realise you were speaking about the time they were bound by the Portuguese official secrecy law the breaking of which has a two year jail sentence as a consequence.
Successful enough to be recognised worldwide as a victory in the Drs McCann libel action and successful enough to force Mr Amaral to appeal it if he wishes to keep hold of the money he made out of writing about the case of a missing child which was botched from start to finish on his watch.
Maybe you had better let us know the definition of "worldwide" upon which you rely in this instance.
You mean having 58% of the claim booted out was successful?If having 58% of the claim booted out resulting in record damages of nearly £400k is not deemed a success in your book, it doesn't follow that everyone else (including the McCanns) would view this result as anything less than a positive result.
It certainly does appear that not only do you have a particular difficulty with 'worldwide' you are unfamiliar with 'difamação' which translates as libel and features in the Portuguese press discussing the judgement against Mr Amaral and his subsequent appeal against it.
So you believe that the populations of China and the Indian subcontinent have an active interest in this case and report upon it assiduously in their media?Worldwide doesn't mean the entire world's population last time I looked.
Wasn't "difamação" a jazz number written and played by Horace Silver and his quintet ?
If having 58% of the claim booted out resulting in record damages of nearly £400k is not deemed a success in your book, it doesn't follow that everyone else (including the McCanns) would view this result as anything less than a positive result.
Were it my claim, which it isn't of course, my view would be so far so good. Given that the potential return will exceed my outlay if the appeal court do not uphold the appeal. But then I am just a mercenary old git who believes claims like this are mostly about money. One can measure it up the totem pole as it were.
The record damages are a function of the sales of Sr Amaral's book. If you read the judgement it was about restoring equity.
were it my claim I would be more than happy with the result....the judge also highlighted the McCanns right to be declared innocent
Were you working for me and submitted a claim for £1.2MM and came back with 400k telling me it was a brilliant result you would be looking for a new job.It's all about the money, money, money for you though, innit bruv?
It's all about the money, money, money for you though, innit bruv?
You said it buster !So you agree that Alice is only interested in the money? OK - fair enough.
It's all about the money, money, money for you though, innit bruv?
When damages are being sought as compensation what other way is there of judging success other than the quantum of the award ?
Claims against G & P, TVI and whoever were dismissed. Claims for £700k were dismissed leaving £400k in the pot subject to appeal. Winner of the appeals scoops the pot. That hasn't happened yet has it?
You could be forgiven for thinking that the McCann's lost the fundamental claims in the case but won the money (so far).
When damages are being sought as compensation what other way is there of judging success other than the quantum of the award ?£400k is a large sum of money by most people's standards. By Portuguese standards it is an unprecedentedly large damages award. If they had been awarded token damages then I agree it would have not been such a successful outcome, however £400k is not a token by any measure. But, as far as the McCanns are concerned they have made it clear it's not solely about the money, but about the moral victory over a man they feel has wronged them and their daughter, so in that respect it was a great success.
Claims against G & P, TVI and whoever were dismissed. Claims for £700k were dismissed leaving £400k in the pot subject to appeal. Winner of the appeals scoops the pot. That hasn't happened yet has it?
yes I'm sure amaral is chuffed to pieces...the book is also banned...and has amaral been told to shut up as wellyeah, and that as well 8((()*/
yeah, and that as well 8((()*/
Too late for that. The book is already out there in Internet land as with the video.
As to his views on the case, easily found.
Quite correct ... there is indeed a tremendous amount of absolute rubbish floating around on the internet. The trick for most discerning users is to avoid it like the plague it is.
£400k is a large sum of money by most people's standards. By Portuguese standards it is an unprecedentedly large damages award. If they had been awarded token damages then I agree it would have not been such a successful outcome, however £400k is not a token by any measure. But, as far as the McCanns are concerned they have made it clear it's not solely about the money, but about the moral victory over a man they feel has wronged them and their daughter, so in that respect it was a great success.
You weren't listening Alfred.If it keeps you quiet then yeah, it was a resounding failure for the McCanns - is that better?
The damages are based on restoring equity, according to the judgement. ie the money gained by Sr Amaral as result of his abusing his position as a civil servant when writing the book, has to be returned such that he has not profited from his abuse of position.
Were it a success the claims made for the children would not have been dismissed.
If it keeps you quiet then yeah, it was a resounding failure for the McCanns - is that better?
No because it was not a resounding failure either.
seeing as in Portugal most believe the mccanns are guilty as amaral claimed...according to shining luz who lives there...it is a tremendous result
They haven't received a penny.Yes legal costs since early 2008 IMO and not a cent to show for it.
Merely escalating legal bills. ...
Yes legal costs since early 2008 IMO and not a cent to show for it.
No because it was not a resounding failure either.Well from now on I'm going to adopt the position that it was a resounding failure just for the joy of having you contradict me. 8)--))
They must know dirt cheap lawyers then as Geryy tells us the vast majority of the fund has gone directly on search fees...exact wordsIMO the preparations (with associated legal costs) to take civil action against Mr Amaral were possibly already being made in the first quarter of 2008.
IMO the preperations (with associated legal costs) to take civil action against Mr Amaral were possibly already being made in the first quarter of 2008.
IMO the preparations (with associated legal costs) to take civil action against Mr Amaral were possibly already being made in the first quarter of 2008.
Well from now on I'm going to adopt the position that it was a resounding failure just for the joy of having you contradict me. 8)--))
You think someone from the publishers had leaked details of Amaral's draft manuscript at that stage? I'm shocked.No, just interpreting legalese in accounts Misty.
No, just interpreting legalese in accounts Misty.
Why not just adopt a position which reflects what it [the judgement] really is ?Because you will argue that white is black and it gets very tedious.
Because you will argue that white is black and it gets very tedious.
I think the whole deal is pretty straightforward.Yeah, whatever you say - you're absolutely right, totally agree 100%. 8@??)(
Try this angle:
In no country can a lower court overturn the ruling of a higher court. Once that is accepted things start to drop into place.
I think the whole deal is pretty straightforward.
Try this angle:
In no country can a lower court overturn the ruling of a higher court. Once that is accepted things start to drop into place.
And that is clearly not happening in this case, is it?
So I cannot see why you even bothered to mention it.
Fair enough, if you can't see why.
Mention of "ex-parte" brings Alice out in a cold sweat, for some reason.
No clue why.
Mention of "ex-parte" brings Alice out in a cold sweat, for some reason.
No clue why.
I assume you are not conflating two different cases.
The ex parte injunction was, and subsequent appeals, was one case. The supreme court simply overturned the ex parte injunction and restored the status quo.
The libel trial over Amaral's book, documentary etc was a completely separate case, and the outcome (damages of E 500k, interest no further sales of the book, video etc).
So there is no question of any ruling being "overturned".
Sorry to burst your bubble.
The Daily Express has published today on page 21 a clarification regarding the damages trial. I can only write transcript of what the apology stated:
"Amplifications and Clarifications
Gonçalo Amaral -Correction
On the 29 April 2015 we published a headline on the front page which said "Maddy detective did lie about death cover up claim". We would like to make it clear that there was no determination by the court that Mr. Amaral lied. In fact the court ruled that Mr. Amaral had breached the McCanns' right to reputation and ordered him to pay damages to them."
The Daily Express has published today on page 21 a clarification regarding the damages trial. I can only write transcript of what the apology stated:
"Amplifications and Clarifications
Gonçalo Amaral -Correction
On the 29 April 2015 we published a headline on the front page which said "Maddy detective did lie about death cover up claim". We would like to make it clear that there was no determination by the court that Mr. Amaral lied. In fact the court ruled that Mr. Amaral had breached the McCanns' right to reputation and ordered him to pay damages to them."
The Daily Express has published today on page 21 a clarification regarding the damages trial. I can only write transcript of what the apology stated:
"Amplifications and Clarifications
Gonçalo Amaral -Correction
On the 29 April 2015 we published a headline on the front page which said "Maddy detective did lie about death cover up claim". We would like to make it clear that there was no determination by the court that Mr. Amaral lied. In fact the court ruled that Mr. Amaral had breached the McCanns' right to reputation and ordered him to pay damages to them."
The Daily Express has published today on page 21 a clarification regarding the damages trial. I can only write transcript of what the apology stated:
"Amplifications and Clarifications
Gonçalo Amaral -Correction
On the 29 April 2015 we published a headline on the front page which said "Maddy detective did lie about death cover up claim". We would like to make it clear that there was no determination by the court that Mr. Amaral lied. In fact the court ruled that Mr. Amaral had breached the McCanns' right to reputation and ordered him to pay damages to them."
I think the whole deal is pretty straightforward.
Try this angle:
In no country can a lower court overturn the ruling of a higher court. Once that is accepted things start to drop into place.
That is a good find Montclair. with the usual "red top" caveat, it is interesting to note that the court ruled on the McCanns right to reputation, which means of course the trial was a defamation one "in this instance Libel".
And rather gives the lie to those who argue that this was NOT a libel trial.
There is no doubt about it in the Portuguese press. It seems only foreigners posting on fora don't understand why the Drs McCann have been awarded damages.
Justiça portuguesa condena inspetor do caso Madeleine por difamação
Gonçalo Amaral publicou livro onde acusava pais por morte de menina.
Madeleine desapareceu em maio de 2007 de quarto de hotel em Portugal.
Portuguese Justice condemns Madeleine case inspector for defamation
Gonçalo Amaral published book in which he accused parents for girl's death.
Madeleine disappeared in May 2007 hotel room in Portugal.
http://g1.globo.com/mundo/noticia/2015/04/justica-portuguesa-condena-inspetor-do-caso-madeleine-por-difamacao.htm
We would like to make it clear that there was no determination by the court that Mr. Amaral lied.
The judge uses the words "hypothesis" and "thesis" quite liberally when referring to Sr Amaral's book in her judgement.That's as maybe. Amaral stated it was a fact that Madeleine died in the apartment however.
The newspaper called Amaral a liar but until we know what happened to Madeleine we don't know if he's right or wrong.If and when it is confirmed that Madeleine was abducted by a stranger will the McCanns be able to sue Amaral for libel (again)?
The newspaper called Amaral a liar but until we know what happened to Madeleine we don't know if he's right or wrong.
If and when it is confirmed that Madeleine was abducted by a stranger will the McCanns be able to sue Amaral for libel (again)?
The red top may have got the headline wrong ... then what is new there?
However the determination of the Portuguese court had already been made.
The ruling concerned the amount of the award to be made to the injured parties ... that it was a substantial one underlines the seriousness of the offence in the judge's opinion.
It will be interesting to find out how the appeal judges will look at it ... if we all live that long.
Gonçalo Amaral condenado a pagar 500 mil euros ao casal McCann
Gonçalo Amaral ordered to pay 500,000 euros to the couple McCann
**Snip
O ex-inspector da Polícia Judiciária (PJ) Gonçalo Amaral foi condenado a pagar 500 mil euros aos pais de Madeleine McCann, por danos causados com a publicação do livro intitulado "Maddie: A Verdade da Mentira", disse hoje à agência Lusa a advogada do casal britânico.
The former Inspector of Judicial Police (PJ) Gonçalo Amaral was ordered to pay 500,000 euros to the parents of Madeleine McCann, for damages caused by the publication of the book titled "Maddie: The Truth of the Lie", he said today the agency Lusa the lawyer British couple.
**Snip
Além deste pagamento, o tribunal decretou ainda a proibição da venda e de novas edições do livro, proibindo ainda novas edições do DVD, assim como a venda dos direitos de autor do livro e do DVD.
O tribunal já tinha dado como provado que o livro do ex-inspector da PJ Gonçalo Amaral causara danos aos pais de Madeleine McCann.
In addition to this payment, the court also decreed a ban on the sale and new editions of the book, even prohibiting new editions of the DVD, as well as selling copyright book and DVD.
The court had already given as proved that the book of former PJ inspector Gonçalo Amaral had caused damages to the parents of Madeleine McCann.
http://www.sol.pt/noticia/388832/gon%C3%A7alo-amaral-condenado-a-pagar-500-mil-euros-ao-casal-mccann
All thanks to them exhibiting 'responsible parenting skills' I presume.
Meanwhile the mccanns have not received a penny, but continue to accrue legal bills.
the fact that the judge awarded damages against amaral means the judge felt amaral was the cause of the damage
the fact that the judge awarded damages against amaral means the judge felt amaral was the cause of the damage
Any ideas why she dismissed everything else in writ?
Let's try again.
Who's actions led to the disappearance of Madeleine ?
It wasn't Amaral.
Don't bother saying abductor.
All thanks to them exhibiting 'responsible parenting skills' I presume.
Meanwhile the mccanns have not received a penny, but continue to accrue legal bills.
Is that an admission that the damages awarded to the Drs McCann are because Mr Amaral lost his defence of their libel action?
damages were awarded by the judge against amaral because the judge felt amaral caused damage
There is certainly no dispute Amaral is a liar.
Unless information, either hitherto unknown that is unearthed, or known to the present enquiry but not in the public domain, demonstrates otherwise, he is also wrong.
To their reputation, not to "the search" and libel cannot be determinedd can it ? without knowing the truth, which no one seems to, bizarre
you do not need to determine the truth to determine libel...that's quite basic
you do not need to determine the truth to determine libel...that's quite basic
Oh really? Do explain then ....this is going to be interesting
Apparently not, or the newspaper would not have retracted it's statement saying he was. Perhaps you should qualify your post by adding IMO?
Lets not stray too far from the topic theme please.
Admin
But firstly, are you suggesting that until Madeleine's fate is determined, the question of the libel of the McCanns by Amaral cannot be settled?
I am asking how someone can be libelled when libel = defamation by false statements and there is not a benchmark even to start with to determine if those statements are true or false..I am not really that bothered,just curious
what you are showing is you do not understand the law of libel....first you need to check your definition of libel which is wrong
what you are showing is you do not understand the law of libel....first you need to check your definition of libel which is wrong
Can you tell me Dave when it was determined how Madeleine disappeared from the apartment.
and no conjecture , by the way.
I am asking how someone can be libelled when libel = defamation by false statements and there is not a benchmark even to start with to determine if those statements are true or false..I am not really that bothered,just curious
enlighten us all then instead of just making the thrust of your post "you do not understand...you are wrong" etc etc..
another one who does not understand the law of libel
The truth of Madeline's disappearance has not been ascertained.
Meanwhile you will say anything in defence of the McCann's.
The truth of Madeline's disappearance has not been ascertained.
Meanwhile you will say anything in defence of the McCann's.
Just as you will say anything in defence of Amaral.
Stalemate.
Until the relative merits of statements made are more carefully considered ...
we are talking about libel...and what it means...the fact that the truth re maddie has not been proved is no defence
The difference being with me, is that I know Amaral made mistakes.
Now ferryman, what mistakes did the McCann's make ?
and what if Madeleine dried in the apartment Dave ?
we are talking about libel...you obviously don't understand the law
and what if Madeleine dried in the apartment Dave ?
simply...if you accuse the mccanns of covering up Maddie's death...that is libel unless you can prove it is true
What if Amaral's "abductor" (who would then be her murderer) murdered her in the apartment before taking her body away, you mean?
Oh really? So nothing at all on the plaintiffs to prove it is false? Well well....
In Portugal IIRC it is different......if it is an honestly held opinion it cannot be libel
Let us not forget the crux....it was a hypothesis.....legitimately made by a police force whe job it was go do that very thing...as I said, bizarre
I don't think anyone on here really understands Portuguese libel law...you are just repeating gossip basically...it seems amaral has been judged to have defamed the McCanns
The Daily Express has published today on page 21 a clarification regarding the damages trial. I can only write transcript of what the apology stated:
"Amplifications and Clarifications
Gonçalo Amaral -Correction
On the 29 April 2015 we published a headline on the front page which said "Maddy detective did lie about death cover up claim". We would like to make it clear that there was no determination by the court that Mr. Amaral lied. In fact the court ruled that Mr. Amaral had breached the McCanns' right to reputation and ordered him to pay damages to them."
nope
That is uncommonly reserved of you.
I find it "interesting" that all of the claim was booted out except "damages" awarded to the Drs McCann which were the amount Sr Amaral profited by behaving illicitly with respect to his former employment, some of which obligations carried forward into his retirement.
It really is quite simple.
By saying in his book that Madeleine died in the apartment and the McCanns covered it up by hiding her body, Amaral was accusing the McCanns of committing a criminal offence and the McCanns brought an action for libel.
Had he not been a former police officer and coordinator of the investigation, he may have been able to use the defence of honestly held opinion. (but had he not been a police officer nobody would have taken any notice of his book).
However, he was, and the court quite rightly found against him as far as the McCanns claim was concerned. And awarded money compensation in respect of their claim, and has also prevented further sales of distribution of the book and video.
For those who ask how a claim for defamation can succeed until Madeleine's fate is known - under law (and this applies to Portugal and to England) everyone is innocent until proven to be guilty, and you cannot accuse someone of committing a crime without facing consequences. Amaral did so, and breached their rights to a good name.
The case in question is quite separate from the case of the ex parte injunction, and subsequent appeals. Therefore this is not a case of a lower court overturning the judgement of a higher court - it is a different case.
For those who say, well its the opinion of one judge - it is the opinion of a Portuguese Court. This cannot be shrugged off lightly by those who are disappointed with the verdict.
We shall, of course, have to see what the verdict of the appeal is. My opinion is we are entering the end game for Amaral. But who knows.
A very good explanation of the libel trial
I suggest you wait for the result of the appeal.
you can suggest all you like...makes no difference to me
That reply makes no sense.
You regularly comment on his appeal.
So you are clearly concerned.
Why did the judge say ?:
"A first conclusion is that if the book is about an hypothetical checking of the facts or about the opinion of the author on how the evidence collected in the investigation should be read, one shouldn't speak of falsehood, untrue facts, and it doesn't make sense, without a better understanding, to discuss the "exceptio veritatis"
Why did she dismiss all claims except that which applied to Sr Amaral's former office and obligations that went with it even after he ceased to hold that office?
Why did the judge say ?:
"A first conclusion is that if the book is about an hypothetical checking of the facts or about the opinion of the author on how the evidence collected in the investigation should be read, one shouldn't speak of falsehood, untrue facts, and it doesn't make sense, without a better understanding, to discuss the "exceptio veritatis"
Why did she dismiss all claims except that which applied to Sr Amaral's former office and obligations that went with it even after he ceased to hold that office?
She struck out the claims which related to Madeleine, and the twins, as they did not suffer damage to reputation.
She admitted the claims in respect of KM and GM, as they had suffered damage
As I said above, under Portuguese Law, an honestly held belief may be a valid defense against an action for libel as can right to freedom of expression. However, by virtue of his position as a former police officer, Amaral was obliged to keep his mouth shut.
Amaral based his defense on his right to freedom of expression, (art 37, 1 and 2) forgetting both (art 37, 3 and 4)
If you want to get technical about it, this was resolving the tension between Article 484 of the civil code (Article 484 - Who affirms or spreads a fact capable of harming the credit or good name of any individual or collective person, is liable for damages.) and article 37 of the constitution paragraphs 1 and 2.
And yes Stephen, we will see what the appeal holds.
The judge also dismissed the claims against the other three defendants.
She also said with specific reference to Sr Amaral:
"The means of obtaining evidence and the evidence referred to in the book are those of the criminal investigation and most of the facts that the book is concerned with (as well as those referred to in the documentary and interview), when related to the criminal investigation, are mostly facts that occurred or are documented in the investigation (n° 80 of the proved facts).
In our view, the issue, in this trial, is the exercise of the right of opinion by the defendant in that context".
The judge also dismissed the claims against the other three defendants.
She also said with specific reference to Sr Amaral:
"The means of obtaining evidence and the evidence referred to in the book are those of the criminal investigation and most of the facts that the book is concerned with (as well as those referred to in the documentary and interview), when related to the criminal investigation, are mostly facts that occurred or are documented in the investigation (n° 80 of the proved facts).
In our view, the issue, in this trial, is the exercise of the right of opinion by the defendant in that context".
Might I suggest you go to the original Portuguese source for material for your posts and place no reliance at all on the interpretations you are using. Google translate might not be perfect ... but it does give a fairly reasonable idea which at least enables information right from the horse's mouth.
I am looking at both.
Did she? You might want to check your facts on this one.
Well you can always post a translated version of the judgement that meets with your approval so we can see.
I have asked others to do so but they have failed dismally to do so.
She struck out the claims which related to Madeleine, and the twins, as they did not suffer damage to reputation.
She admitted the claims in respect of KM and GM, as they had suffered damage
As I said above, under Portuguese Law, an honestly held belief may be a valid defense against an action for libel as can right to freedom of expression. However, by virtue of his position as a former police officer, Amaral was obliged to keep his mouth shut.
Amaral based his defense on his right to freedom of expression, (art 37, 1 and 2) forgetting both (art 37, 3 and 4)
If you want to get technical about it, this was resolving the tension between Article 484 of the civil code (Article 484 - Who affirms or spreads a fact capable of harming the credit or good name of any individual or collective person, is liable for damages.) and article 37 of the constitution paragraphs 1 and 2.
And yes Stephen, we will see what the appeal holds.
Is it possible to libel a child, or does the law only apply to adults ?
Is it possible to libel a child, or does the law only apply to adults ?
I've never really given it much thought before and have no idea what the legal situation might be. The age of criminal responsibility in Scotland is eight years and in the rest of the UK ten (I think).
However Police Scotland have reported children as young as three for criminal offences, so everything is possible. http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-27614288
I'm sure you can libel a child...but the twins were not libelled
If you think about it logically I am sure you must be able to and I agree that no-one libelled the twins ... however I am firmly of the opinion that belief in and promotion of Mr Amaral's theory damaged the search for Madeleine.
If you think about it logically I am sure you must be able to and I agree that no-one libelled the twins ... however I am firmly of the opinion that belief in and promotion of Mr Amaral's theory damaged the search for Madeleine.
You have claimed that all of the claims against the other three defendants have been dismissed. Can you offer a cite for that?
Well you can look at the translation on here. If you think like others it is suspect then look at the Portuguese document on Pamalam and translate it on google translate yourself. At the time of the judgement a google translate version was posted on here.
The other three defendants were not ordered to pay out a plug nickel in compensation.
but you are only quoting from one
So Funny how all the people who complain about translation errors left right and centre actually quote from the "amateurish" translated files all the time to back up their arguments
Hypocritics r us
So Funny how all the people who complain about translation errors left right and centre actually quote from the "amateurish" translated files all the time to back up their arguments
Hypocritics r us
Misty/JP
Not only have a handful of people here complained about the translated files "that they use and quote" so are ingrates anyway but on top of that they say the orignal portuguese translations by the official interpretors are also unreliable , so YES I mantain the charge of HYPOCRISY...and these people have no right whatsoever in lieu of this to ever state anything or quote anything from the PJ Files, ok now?
!
Far better we all rely on media reports derived from "a source close to the investigation", don't you agree?
Sigh!
One cannot state the pj files are unreliable at source and also with translation and then quote them in defence of any argument you make !!
As for newspaper articles, both countries media can never be the bastion of truth!
Maybe you are beginning to understand why the McCanns had to spend so much money on getting the files properly translated, why SY had to spend so much time re-interviewing English-speaking witnesses, why TTOTL had to be properly translated.......that is reality, Mercury. The rest of us are just involved in a (sophisticated?) game on the internet whilst the police do a proper job.
Far better we all rely on media reports derived from "a source close to the investigation", don't you agree?
Fascinating.
So we have the lovely Alice claiming that the action against the other three defendants had been dismissed by the Court. On the rather curious basis that "The other three defendants were not ordered to pay out a plug nickel in compensation."
If one actually reads the judgement, then financial compensation was not a part of the McCanns requests in respect of the other three defendants.
It turns out that most of the requests by the Mccanns have been granted by the court. Ooops!
So then we have an odd, off topic post from dear Faith, about Tony Bennett's correspondence with the Express.
And finally, a series of posts from Mercury calling fellow posters hypocrites for quoting from translations.
To wit "Not only have a handful of people here complained about the translated files "that they use and quote" so are ingrates anyway but on top of that they say the orignal portuguese translations by the official interpretors are also unreliable , so YES I mantain the charge of HYPOCRISY...and these people have no right whatsoever in lieu of this to ever state anything or quote anything from the PJ Files, ok now?"
__________________
What are we to make of it? The realisation that the Court ranted most of the McCann's requests in respect of the other three defendants seems to have caused some real disquiet in the ranks of Amaral's Acolytes.
Since when was 500k most of 1.2MM ?Perhaps you could at least have the good grace to acknowledge your "mistake" with regard the other defendants, or does good grace elude you today, Alice dear?
Fascinating.
So we have the lovely Alice claiming that the action against the other three defendants had been dismissed by the Court. On the rather curious basis that "The other three defendants were not ordered to pay out a plug nickel in compensation."
If one actually reads the judgement, then financial compensation was not a part of the McCanns requests in respect of the other three defendants.
It turns out that most of the requests by the Mccanns have been granted by the court. Ooops!
So then we have an odd, off topic post from dear Faith, about Tony Bennett's correspondence with the Express.
And finally, a series of posts from Mercury calling fellow posters hypocrites for quoting from translations.
To wit "Not only have a handful of people here complained about the translated files "that they use and quote" so are ingrates anyway but on top of that they say the orignal portuguese translations by the official interpretors are also unreliable , so YES I mantain the charge of HYPOCRISY...and these people have no right whatsoever in lieu of this to ever state anything or quote anything from the PJ Files, ok now?"
__________________
What are we to make of it? The realisation that the Court granted most of the McCann's requests in respect of the other three defendants seems to have caused some real disquiet in the ranks of Amaral's Acolytes.
Perhaps you could at least have the good grace to acknowledge your "mistake" with regard the other defendants, or does good grace elude you today, Alice dear?
Which part of what JP has quoted to you from the court ruling do you doubt? As for your comment, we have already had this discussion, and it has no bearing on your claim that the other three defendants got off scot-free.
Good grace eludes me all the time Alf because I am actually what Bill Wyman called Chuck Berry ?{)(**
Not until I have made sure the other party is in fact correct in all they say 8(>((
But the comment about when was 500k considered to be most of 1.2MM still stands?
For example Alf do you believe that 500k is more than 50% of 1.2MM? So if it isn't ?
Good grace eludes me all the time Alf because I am actually what Bill Wyman called Chuck Berry ?{)(**
Not until I have made sure the other party is in fact correct in all they say 8(>((
But the comment about when was 500k considered to be most of 1.2MM still stands?
For example Alf do you believe that 500k is more than 50% of 1.2MM? So if it isn't ?
The Case wasn't just about money.
The Case wasn't just about money.
One could point out that money was the Genesis of this case as saving money was the reason Maddie was put at risk in the first place.Really? Did the McCanns and their friends give that as the reason for doing their own checks or are you simply casting slurs on them all for the fun of it?
Really? Did the McCanns and their friends give that as the reason for doing their own checks or are you simply casting slurs on them all for the fun of it?
One could point out that money was the Genesis of this case as saving money was the reason Maddie was put at risk in the first place.
Good grace eludes me all the time Alf because I am actually what Bill Wyman called Chuck Berry ?{)(**
Not until I have made sure the other party is in fact correct in all they say 8(>((
But the comment about when was 500k considered to be most of 1.2MM still stands?
For example Alf do you believe that 500k is more than 50% of 1.2MM? So if it isn't ?
Evidently.
If you read my post, you will see that it was confined to the case against the other three defendants. And of course the McCann's claim only related to the publication and distribution of the book and DVD, and there was no financial claim in relation to the other three defendants.
However, you do raise an interesting point over the original claim, which was:
Payment to each of them of damages with a global value not inferior to 1.2 million Euros , being 500.000 Euros to the 3rd claimant (MBM), 100.000 Euros each for the 4th (SMM) and 5th (AEM) claimants and 250.000 Euros each for the 1st (KM) and 2nd (GM) claimants.
In the event, the court struck out the claims in respect of Madeleine and the twins, and this is probably reasonable. It is impossible to quantify what damage has been caused.
But the claims in respect of GM and KM have been granted in full.
Evidently.
If you read my post, you will see that it was confined to the case against the other three defendants. And of course the McCann's claim only related to the publication and distribution of the book and DVD, and there was no financial claim in relation to the other three defendants.
However, you do raise an interesting point over the original claim, which was:
Payment to each of them of damages with a global value not inferior to 1.2 million Euros , being 500.000 Euros to the 3rd claimant (MBM), 100.000 Euros each for the 4th (SMM) and 5th (AEM) claimants and 250.000 Euros each for the 1st (KM) and 2nd (GM) claimants.
In the event, the court struck out the claims in respect of Madeleine and the twins, and this is probably reasonable. It is impossible to quantify what damage has been caused.
But the claims in respect of GM and KM have been granted in full.
Can you remind d us all of what payments have been made ?
None to the Madeleine fund, of course. (Do bear in mind that the money is still under the court's control, though).
Given that the case is still at the appeal stage, this must be a contender for "stupid question of year" award.
I was being sarcastic.
Then again, you are rarely on the ball.
You wish. 8(0(* 8(0(*
Yes we know.
REVENGE.
Oh dear Stephen. Your hate goggles have been getting all fogged up with bile again.
If the McCanns motive had been revenge, they would have brought an article 180 action.
There is no 'oh dear' about it.
The McCann's wanted revenge against Amaral and that is well known.
Why do you deny it ?
As to bile, ask Kate McCann and her reference to 'f##### to####', and let's not forget 'Tweedledum and Tweedledee'.
However, I'm too polite to say what I really think of the McCann's on here. £4%4%
Which part of what JP has quoted to you from the court ruling do you doubt? As for your comment, we have already had this discussion, and it has no bearing on your claim that the other three defendants got off scot-free.From Google translate of the judgement. Anne Guedes translation is pretty similar:
From Google translate of the judgement. Anne Guedes translation is pretty similar:what are you understanding "retain the support ôf the thesis que" to mean, out of interest?
VI. Judge over the rest of unfounded the claims made in the action attached by the authors KATE MARIE PATRICK HEALY McCann and Gerald McCann against the defendants GONÇALO AMARAL, WAR & PEACE, EDITORS, SA and VC - OAK-FILM VALENTINE, AUDIOVISUAL, SA and same acquit the defendants.
VII. Judging fully rejected the claims made in the attached action against TVI defendant - INDEPENDENT TELEVISION, SA, the same acquitting the defendant.
VII is clear enough. I leave it to the “experts” to have a dreadfully esoteric discussion about what VI means but it is fairly obvious.
But none of it was about the money. Apparently the only person in Portugal who cannot talk about and support Sr Amaral’s thesis is he. The entire nation and it’s dog seemingly can:
The prohibitions required under paragraphs d), e) and f) of action of petitionary attached, beyond the scope of this action and are Disproportionate. It is not illegal to retain the support of the thesis que Madeleine McCann died a smaller apartment in Praia da Luz and his body was hidden by parents. The scope of action is the claim by the defendant Goncalo Amaral, in the book, the interview and documentary, in concrete terms in Which it did, this same thesis.
From Google translate of the judgement. Anne Guedes translation is pretty similar:
VI. Judge over the rest of unfounded the claims made in the action attached by the authors KATE MARIE PATRICK HEALY McCann and Gerald McCann against the defendants GONÇALO AMARAL, WAR & PEACE, EDITORS, SA and VC - OAK-FILM VALENTINE, AUDIOVISUAL, SA and same acquit the defendants.
VII. Judging fully rejected the claims made in the attached action against TVI defendant - INDEPENDENT TELEVISION, SA, the same acquitting the defendant.
VII is clear enough. I leave it to the “experts” to have a dreadfully esoteric discussion about what VI means but it is fairly obvious.
But none of it was about the money. Apparently the only person in Portugal who cannot talk about and support Sr Amaral’s thesis is he. The entire nation and it’s dog seemingly can:
The prohibitions required under paragraphs d), e) and f) of action of petitionary attached, beyond the scope of this action and are Disproportionate. It is not illegal to retain the support of the thesis que Madeleine McCann died a smaller apartment in Praia da Luz and his body was hidden by parents. The scope of action is the claim by the defendant Goncalo Amaral, in the book, the interview and documentary, in concrete terms in Which it did, this same thesis.
From Google translate of the judgement. Anne Guedes translation is pretty similar:__________________________
VI. Judge over the rest of unfounded the claims made in the action attached by the authors KATE MARIE PATRICK HEALY McCann and Gerald McCann against the defendants GONÇALO AMARAL, WAR & PEACE, EDITORS, SA and VC - OAK-FILM VALENTINE, AUDIOVISUAL, SA and same acquit the defendants.
VII. Judging fully rejected the claims made in the attached action against TVI defendant - INDEPENDENT TELEVISION, SA, the same acquitting the defendant.
VII is clear enough. I leave it to the “experts” to have a dreadfully esoteric discussion about what VI means but it is fairly obvious.
But none of it was about the money. Apparently the only person in Portugal who cannot talk about and support Sr Amaral’s thesis is he. The entire nation and it’s dog seemingly can:
The prohibitions required under paragraphs d), e) and f) of action of petitionary attached, beyond the scope of this action and are Disproportionate. It is not illegal to retain the support of the thesis que Madeleine McCann died a smaller apartment in Praia da Luz and his body was hidden by parents. The scope of action is the claim by the defendant Goncalo Amaral, in the book, the interview and documentary, in concrete terms in Which it did, this same thesis.
__________________________
(I see that in fact the claims against TV1 were dropped - mainly because they provided a disclaimer in 44 and 45 before broadcast which provided them with a good defence - well spotted Alice)
So Alice - are you saying that the snipped part of the judgement above, and in particular VI fully supports your view that the other three defendants (GONÇALO AMARAL, WAR & PEACE, EDITORS, SA and VC - OAK-FILM VALENTINE, AUDIOVISUAL, SA and TV1) all got off scott free?
I never used the term scot(t) free that was Alfred then you.
Your proposition is that the case was a resounding success for the McCanns and they got most of what they claimed.
My proposition is it wasn't and they didn't. So far they have yet to hold on to what has been awarded.
The judges apportionment of court costs would not appear to reflect your view.
The judges apportionment of costs would
the ruling was a disaster for amaral...and a resounding success for the McCanns....it really is that simple
I agree.
the ruling was a disaster for amaral...and a resounding success for the McCanns....it really is that simple
the ruling was a disaster for amaral...and a resounding success for the McCanns....it really is that simple
what are you understanding "retain the support ôf the thesis que" to mean, out of interest?
I'm with JP in thinking that things may not all be going to plan in Mr Amaral's life at the moment. Then what's new ... if you take a cursory look he seems to have made a car crash out of everything he has had anything to do with ... one can only hope he is as successful with his appeal as he is with everything else he touches.
The Lisbon appeal court is taking its time over this latest decision, could it be they were hoping our boys in blue would have made a wonderful breakthrough by now?
Absolutely not
The Lisbon court will be extremely interested in what the police come up with in relation to the claimed abduction.
The Lisbon court will be extremely interested in what the police come up with in relation to the claimed abduction.The Lisbon court is independent and will make its own decision based on the facts of the case
The Lisbon appeal court is taking its time over this latest decision, could it be they were hoping our boys in blue would have made a wonderful breakthrough by now?
Davel is quite correct, Angelo. The appeal court will be sticking to its remit of considering points of law and the evidence presented at the original trial, and the grounds that Dr Amaral has given for his appeal against the decision.
.
[ moderated ]
The Court has also to take into account live police investigations and act accordingly. An example of this would be if Madeleine were found. The Court would then have to refer the case back to the original judge to make appropriate changes to her judgement taking into account the claims made by both parties to the damages lawsuit.Such as...? How would Madeleine being found alter the damages judgement?
Such as...? How would Madeleine being found alter the damages judgement?
That would depend on what was found, whether she was alive or dead and many other factors. The Court of First Instance has made its decision taking into account many factors. A breakthrough in the investigation to discover what befell Madeleine could very well alter one or more of those factors. The CoFI judge would then be asked to review her Judgement.
That would depend on what was found, whether she was alive or dead and many other factors. The Court of First Instance has made its decision taking into account many factors. A breakthrough in the investigation to discover what befell Madeleine could very well alter one or more of those factors. The CoFI judge would then be asked to review her Judgement.
Are you suggesting that the appeal will be deferred or delayed pending completion of the police investigation and madeleines fate determined?
No but should evidence come to light before the CoA make their decision, that evidence could have an impact on the original decision. That said, regardless of when the case is determined, assuming for a moment it ever will be, I foresee other lawsuits being pursued by the innocent party or parties.
Will amaral be able to appeal again if he loses
There are various options available to him..
.
I'm not sure there is
What options are you referring to
There are various options available to him.
The legal position is that if the appeal court agrees the verdict of the first court then judgement becomes final. No further appeal would be allowed and he would have to pay up.
If the court of second instance disagrees then the appeal may proceed to the Supreme Court.
The legal position is that if the appeal court agrees the verdict of the first court then judgement becomes final. No further appeal would be allowed and he would have to pay up.
If the court of second instance disagrees then the appeal may proceed to the Supreme Court.
judgement would become final and payment due. As the money is apparently held in court it would be quick.
But thinking of amarals options in that eventuality - he has often mentioned a counter claim against the mccanns and that remains possible. Although I struggle to think on what grounds.
That is more or less a fair summation. If the appeal is upheld and Mr Amaral wins and sees his assets unfrozen after six years of litigation the McCanns can also appeal. That would involve an appeal to the Supreme Court, and then even to the Constitutional Court.On what basis?
Should Amaral lose the fight he could raise a case against Portuguese justice in the European Court of Human Rights on the basis of freedom of expression. Whatever happens it could be years before the matter is fully resolved.
There is also every possibility that Amaral could raise his own civil proceedings against the McCanns.
That is more or less a fair summation. If the appeal is upheld and Mr Amaral wins and sees his assets unfrozen after six years of litigation the McCanns can also appeal. That would involve an appeal to the Supreme Court, and then even to the Constitutional Court.
Should Amaral lose the fight he could raise a case against Portuguese justice in the European Court of Human Rights on the basis of freedom of expression. Whatever happens it could be years before the matter is fully resolved.
There is also every possibility that Amaral could raise his own civil proceedings against the McCanns.
On what basis?
It wouldn't be appropriate for me to publish this information on a public forum.
this case is not about freedom of expression...its about amaral breaking a Portuguese law relating to not allowing the McCanns the presumption of innocence ...which they are guaranteed under European law...that's why I don't think he has a case to take to Europe. Secondly I don't think an appeal to the European court could over ride the Portuguese judgement and amaral would be forced to pay damages...in the hope that his European appeal would see the money returned
It wouldn't be appropriate for me to publish this information on a public forum.What information are you talking about? I'm only asking your opinion re: what possible reason Amaral could have for suing the McCanns.
I think we are all aware of the facts in this case...amaral is toast as I have said before...if he had a case against the McCanns he would have started things by now...if you can't give any details your comments can only be viewed as pure speculation. You have posted several times that you could not see how the judge could make a judgement when Maddie's fate was not known...you were wrong on that so unfortunately your track record is not too good
You obviously haven't read the judgement then.
John is correct, any judgement could be overturned when the truth comes out. Take care with your bitchy comments davel, you are already on a warning.
It wouldn't be appropriate for me to publish this information on a public forum.
The McCanns were entitled to the presumption of innocence when they had not been tried and found guilty...the judgement was clear on that....in the very unlikely situation that the McCanns were subsequently found guilty...at the time amaral made his comments they were entitled to be presumed innocentIndeed. Surely Amaral's actions over the last few years have ensured that in such an event of the McCanns being charged with a crime in Portugal they could never expect a fair trial anyway.
Of course. (Touches nose knowingly)
Come off it john. This isn't the first time you've tried the secret squirrel stuff.
The McCanns were entitled to the presumption of innocence when they had not been tried and found guilty...the judgement was clear on that....in the very unlikely situation that the McCanns were subsequently found guilty...at the time amaral made his comments they were entitled to be presumed innocent
Actually much of it isn't secret and has been discussed at length previously. Let's just say Amaral isn't the only one who has questions to answer.
Didn't the Attorney General state that they had lost the opportunity to establish (confirmar) that innocence?
Didn't the Attorney General state that they had lost the opportunity to establish (confirmar) that innocence?Really John, how many times has this been gone over and explained?!
The stuff about an appeal to the ECHR is straight out of the Bennett legal expertise. He tried that in his own case.
The ECHR has made it clear that it is not to be seen as a sort of super court of appeal for disgruntled litigants and amaral simply does not have a case. Sorry.
Didn't the Attorney General state that they had lost the opportunity to establish (confirmar) that innocence?
demonstrate sounds much more plausible to me.
I am more than willing to give the prosecutors benefit of doubt that they are not fascist, particularly in light of what else they say in their report, and of what else has come to light from files we read on line, many given via the agency of proven fraudster Levy.
The files are a useful guide, but they are no more than that.
For the benefit of angelo...
In this case, the claimants Kate and Gerald MacCann never ceased to benefit from this presumption of innocence and from the imperative of behaviour that this presumption places on national judicial and justice authorities and all the civil servants and agents.
This is obviously from the judgement which made a major point that amaral had a responsibility as a justice authority agent to respect the presumption of innocence
The presumption of innocence and being technically innocent are probably mutually exclusive.
that would imply that all accused are guilty...which fits in well with the amaral school of justice
So you co-operate and answer police questions to prove your innocent. By not answering questions don't expect to be cleared as suspects in an unsolved case. If you are not helping but hindering the police investigation then it's stupid to think otherwise.
1. On May 3 2007, around 22:00, when you entered the apartment, what did you see? What did you do? Where did you look? What did you touch?
So you co-operate and answer police questions to prove your innocent. By not answering questions don't expect to be cleared as suspects in an unsolved case. If you are not helping but hindering the police investigation then it's stupid to think otherwise.
1. On May 3 2007, around 22:00, when you entered the apartment, what did you see? What did you do? Where did you look? What did you touch?
Can you imagine what would have happened if the mccanns had answered all questions and thus proved their innocence...would posters on here have accepted them as innocent
That's a big assumption davel, would answering all the questions have proved them innocent?
WOW! took them ages to get round to asking that one ... how many months after ? ? ?
WOW! took them ages to get round to asking that one ... how many months after ? ? ?
That doesn't matter. SY are asking witnesses questions 8 years later.
Can you imagine what would have happened if the mccanns had answered all questions and thus proved their innocence...would posters on here have accepted them as innocent
They say sarcasm is the lowest form of wit ... so having failed with that one allow me put it to you as simply as I can.
It is my opinion that if Dr McCann had not already been asked that specific question ... the police were somewhat remiss in their duty.
The ideal time would have been immediately after Madeleine's disappearance when things were still fresh in her mind. Or even when she was still a witness while under lengthy questioning prior to being constituted arguida ... when she would have been obliged to answer.
Tannerman seen carrying a child close to the crime scene was the first suspect not the McCanns. They were leaving Portugal after being accused of involvement in August. They left the next day after both being declared arguidos.
It is absolutely right that we are subject to the same high standards of investigation as anyone else. Kate and I have, and will continue to assist the police in every possible way. GM Blog Day 96 - 07/08/2007
@)(++(*
Well, where to start
-they were made to look utterly stupid judging by the pathetic performance of some of their "witnesses"
- they had a claim trashed even before hearing
- most of their claims were denied
- most of their claims remain unproven
- their action will have a bad pr effect either way
- the whole trial will always go down as a money grabbng exercise, by them, confirmed by the very fact they waited a whole year to sue...€€€€€€€€€€
Interesting
Which claims were denied?
And who is appealing the result?
Interesting that the media reported the judgement as a huge success for the McCanns - are they all ignorant of the facts? Or are they all part of Team McCann, or what?
Interesting that the media reported the judgement as a huge success for the McCanns - are they all ignorant of the facts? Or are they all part of Team McCann, or what?
Read the judgement
Interesting that the media reported the judgement as a huge success for the McCanns - are they all ignorant of the facts? Or are they all part of Team McCann, or what?
I have of course read the judgement. Which is why I am puzzled about your statement that the case was a "car crash" for the McCanns.
Their claims met in full as far as Amaral and two of the defendants are concerned.
If it was such a car crash, why did Amaral need a fund to cover the costs of his appeal?
I have of course read the judgement. Which is why I am puzzled about your statement that the case was a "car crash" for the McCanns.
Their claims met in full as far as Amaral and two of the defendants are concerned.
If it was such a car crash, why did Amaral need a fund to cover the costs of his appeal?
They accepted Team McCann's statement that 'it was about harming the search' and none of them pointed out that the judge found that point not proven, so take your pick. Ignorant, scared of Carter Ruck, supportive, could be any of them given the state of our media these days.if the judgement really was a car crash verdict for the McCanns and the media had reported it as such, how would that have been a) unsupportive or b) subject to a potential legal threat?
Claims NOT met in full JP
if the judgement really was a car crash verdict for the McCanns and the media had reported it as such, how would that have been a) unsupportive or b) subject to a potential legal threat?
Neither Amaral's book nor video will see light of day again and Amaral isn't appealing that.
Amaral has been ordered to pay the McCanns compensation and he is appealing that.
True that a book published after the investigation was archived was deemed not to have harmed the investigation into Madeleine's disappearance.
No real surprise there
That Amaral is appealing clearly indicates he is not happy.
That the McCanns are not clearly indicates they are (at least with the outcome of the trial)
You do exist in dreamland.
The book is already on the internet as is the video.
The mccanns have yet to get a penny.
Meanwhile let's what John comes up with. *&*%£
Oh dear, are you really such an innocent in the way of the world, and especially the legal world?
In a complex civil case where there are numerous claims, it is vanishingly rare for all of the claims to be met in full. (In cases which are so clear cut, then it is usually settled out of court.)
So if your definition of "car crash" is "all claims not met in full" then best of luck to you.
In fairness, I do realise that it is your mission to support Amaral in every possible way, but maybe try to keep somewhere within the realms of reality? This is not Haverns or some of the other places - it is a forum where all shades of opinion are promoted.
Oh dear....if you have issues take them up where they belong and dont use me as a punchbag, ta, your last paragraph is laughable at best...get a grip
if the judgement really was a car crash verdict for the McCanns and the media had reported it as such, how would that have been a) unsupportive or b) subject to a potential legal threat?
I never said that the verdict was a car crash for the McCanns. I was referring to the fact that they didn't challenge the McCann's 'spinned' version of their win. Not one reported the truth of the verdict; that the McCann's won damages for themselves, but not for their children or for the 'harm to the search'. Team McCann may have been telling the truth as they saw it when they said the case was about the harm caused to the search and the libeling of the children, but that's not why they won a pay out.
I don't think libelling the children was part of the claim.....much as you don't want to accept it...the verdict was a resounding victory for the McCanns and a disaster for amaral
Amaral's book will never see light of day (at least in any retail shop, perhaps, free on the internet). Neither his video.
He would be a brave (foolhardy) man to continue appearances on television to talk about it.
Since Amaral's assets are frozen, he may not have too many options about delaying payment of damages to the McCanns.
It's difficult to see what consolation Amaral can take from the fallout of events in May.
His appeal (if such he has) is against the damages award.
Amaral's book will never see light of day (at least in any retail shop, perhaps, free on the internet). Neither his video.
He would be a brave (foolhardy) man to continue appearances on television to talk about it.
Since Amaral's assets are frozen, he may not have too many options about delaying payment of damages to the McCanns.
It's difficult to see what consolation Amaral can take from the fallout of events in May.
His appeal (if such he has) is against the damages award.
If Amaral loses the McCanns will still have to pay over 50% of the costs which could possibly, I assume, erode significantly the damages awarded to them.
early damage limitation
Amaral has been punished for writing a book of lies that will never see light of day again.
I never said that the verdict was a car crash for the McCanns. I was referring to the fact that they didn't challenge the McCann's 'spinned' version of their win. Not one reported the truth of the verdict; that the McCann's won damages for themselves, but not for their children or for the 'harm to the search'. Team McCann may have been telling the truth as they saw it when they said the case was about the harm caused to the search and the libeling of the children, but that's not why they won a pay out.I believe the past tense of spin is spun, but that's by the by. The papers reported the truth in as much as the verdict was a resounding success for the McCanns and that Amaral was ordered to make the largest ever payout in PT legal history for a case of this kind. The detail that you are harping on is of little interest or consequence to the average punter, much as you would wish it to be otherwise.
Amaral has been punished for writing a book of lies that will never see light of day again.
That is correct provided he loses his appeal.
Mind you if he loses it only cuts off a source income for Sr Amaral which was the objective of the ruling. The offending work is splattered all over the net and 250,000 copies are in circulation somewhere so his word is about for anyone who wishes to read it.
I think the important words are...for anyone who wishes to read it
Probably, but the net result of the trial,so far, is that Sr Amaral may not profit from the book and video but the thesis is at large and quoted by the press which provides a larger circulation than the book sales.
I would say he and his thesis has been fairly well discredited outside of Portugal
The proof of the pudding will be in the eating ... it will be interesting to see if after the dust settles on the appeal ... Mr Amaral's presence as a pundit on Portuguese television holds the same sway.Oh, but he's a national hero in Portugal isn't he?
Could be a nice little earner down the drain ... having Google read (LOL) some of the comments in the Portuguese press after the announcement of the judgement ... there are a lot of people in Portugal none too impressed by him.
Oh, but he's a national hero in Portugal isn't he?
The Court of Appeal in Lisbon is certainly taking its time in making a decision in the McCann damages case but with so much at stake literally I suppose it was inevitable. Hopefully the next few weeks will see this issue resolved.
Oh, but he's a national hero in Portugal isn't he?
Goncalo Amaral once claimed in an interview that he was surprised when the McCanns raised the damages action against him one year after the book had been published. Could it be that he sorely underestimated the issue at stake?
Issue at stake ? The McCanns reputation? that is what this is about. nothing more> nothing less, well a million quid as well but that wasn't an issue. (chuckles)
Oh I took that to be him wondering why it took a whole year for them to use the law. I mean, the book was about what he knew about the case along with some insight he had,his opinions etc. good ole detective story if you will.
What did you mean by this John? "Hopefully the next few weeks will see this issue resolved".
The Court of Appeal in Lisbon is certainly taking its time in making a decision in the McCann damages case but with so much at stake literally I suppose it was inevitable. Hopefully the next few weeks will see this issue resolved.
Goncalo Amaral once claimed in an interview that he was surprised when the McCanns raised the damages action against him one year after the book had been published. Could it be that he sorely underestimated the issue at stake?
I don't imagine either side expected it to be entering it's eighth year.
Ah ! well a-day ! what evil looks
Had I from old and young !
Instead of the cross, the Albatross
About my neck was hung.
Goncalo Amaral once claimed in an interview that he was surprised when the McCanns raised the damages action against him one year after the book had been published. Could it be that he sorely underestimated the issue at stake?
At one point he seemed to be in favour of it... something about enticing bulls into a ring in order to fight. Or something.
Not sure I could find the reference to this so many years later.
Amaral did say, "Bring it on. I want them to sue me." And so they did.What 's that saying - be careful what you wish for? @)(++(*
What 's that saying - be careful what you wish for? @)(++(*
Amaral did say, "Bring it on. I want them to sue me." And so they did.
'Target was hit, Gonçalo Amaral was convicted'... Marcos Aragão Correia, Leonor Cipriano's Lawyer
Quote'Target was hit, Gonçalo Amaral was convicted'... Marcos Aragão Correia, Leonor Cipriano's Lawyer
is there a credible source for this?
Quote'Target was hit, Gonçalo Amaral was convicted'... Marcos Aragão Correia, Leonor Cipriano's Lawyer
And then Amaral lost his case against Correia.
Q: Are you hoping the McCanns will sue you?
A: Yes! (here he gave a Portugese metaphor about a bullfight, something about having to first entice the bull into the middle of the ring before the fight can start).
http://www.gerrymccannsblogs.co.uk/press/25MAY9/GONCALO_AMARAL_05_05_2009.htm
Perhaps he assumed they didn't have enough money to sue him ? I'm sure he never imagined that they would stoop so low as to use the fund set up to find their daughter to bankroll their reputation litigation against him.
Perhaps he assumed they didn't have enough money to sue him ? I'm sure he never imagined that they would stoop so low as to use the fund set up to find their daughter to bankroll their reputation litigation against him.
How low do you think they stooped Faith - when they put hundreds of thousands of £s of their own money into the fund and gave thousands of £s to charity - money which they were perfectly entitled to put into their own private bank accounts had they so wished?
How low do you think they stooped Faith - when they put hundreds of thousands of £s of their own money into the fund and gave thousands of £s to charity - money which they were perfectly entitled to put into their own private bank accounts had they so wished?
it is not their 'own money' if it has been raised by telling potential donators that the money is going to the fund as it was with the book. Looking at their own Facebook page you can see how many people bought the book because they assumed they were aiding the search for a little girl.
If the McCanns are being honest and transparent about the money being donated why isn't there one single solitary word about paying libel lawyers in the fund's aims ?
As a donator myself and also someone who bought Kate's book - I have no objection whatsoever in their using the fund to expose the lies, half truths, lies by omission and spiteful innuendo made against them and their friends in Amarals book. I'm pleased to know I helped in some small way.
Strange how some people defend Amarals right to defend HIS reputation and to sue those who he thinks have besmirched it - but object to the victims of his book having the same right to defend theirs and also their genuine belief that his book damaged the search for their daughter.
Where does it say in the Fund that the compensation for libel awarded to the McCanns and their friends i.e. some £850,000 must be put into the fund?
It doesn't but once the money is in the fund it no longer belongs to the Drs McCann and their friends, it belongs to the limited company and may only be spent how the articles of association and so on say.
The main purpose is to help find Madeleine. A former head of the investigation insists that she is dead, without proof, at every opportunity and is therefore not worth searching for.
The fact that empirical proof of the extent of damage couldn't be proven to the court's satisfaction is neither here nor there.
it is not their 'own money' if it has been raised by telling potential donators that the money is going to the fund as it was with the book. Looking at their own Facebook page you can see how many people bought the book because they assumed they were aiding the search for a little girl.
If the McCanns are being honest and transparent about the money being donated why isn't there one single solitary word about paying libel lawyers in the fund's aims ?
The main purpose is to help find Madeleine. A former head of the investigation insists that she is dead, without proof, at every opportunity and is therefore not worth searching for.
The fact that empirical proof of the extent of damage couldn't be proven to the court's satisfaction is neither here nor there.
There must be loads of people who read his book and as a result of doing that agreed with him - especially as he deliberately left out the fact that he'd never met Kate or spoken to either Kate or Gerry. Those readers thought they were getting a first hand account - when nothing could be further from the truth.
Unfortunately as there was no way to quantify the numbers who were convinced by his book - then proving it was not possible and so was not accepted by the court.
I don't accept that, bearing in mind how little was spent on the search, which from memory is about 13%.
The fund states that the money was to be used in the search for Madeleine and to help the parents.
If someone comes along and writes a book saying the child is dead and the parents are responsible for hiding her body. Then the money [as it is there to help the family] can use it in order to stop the accusations being made as the public will assume the child is dead and there is no need to continue to search for her or give any information regarding where she may be.
You might want to search for the source of that assessment and have a look at what was taken into account.
Does that include staying at five star hotels and first class accomodation Carana ?
I wonder if people donating to the fund expected that ?
Hardly essential expenses.
How many times have either of them stayed at "five star hotels"? And where is it stated that it was "first class accommodation?"
I remember one media rumpus over one short visit to Lisbon by Gerry at a 5-star hotel back in Jan 2009. I've just checked that one and today's best deal is £75 (and we are now 7 years later).
What do you find excessive, even at 2016 prices?
NB:
Have you checked the source and attributed costs of the "13%" yet?
Indeed I have.
Some time ago.
Enid O'Dowds breakdown of the funds accounts.
OK. So what did it say to substantiate that only "13%" had been spent on searching then?
This has been gone through numerous times before.
Look her up in reference to the mccanns.
How many times have either of them stayed at "five star hotels"? And where is it stated that it was "first class accommodation?"Remember you need to multiply that cost per room by 2 (2 hotel rooms).
I remember one media rumpus over one short visit to Lisbon by Gerry at a 5-star hotel back in Jan 2009. I've just checked that one and today's best deal is £75 (and we are now 7 years later).
What do you find excessive, even at 2016 prices?
NB:
Have you checked the source and attributed costs of the "13%" yet?
Oh go on, Stephen.... just a little tiny citiepoo? With a reference as to what that may have been based on?
This has been discussed extensively on here before.
However, if you believe you have the facts and figures, independently audited of course, to show how much the mccanns have spent on 'searching', please show them.
Remember you need to multiply that cost per room by 2 (2 hotel rooms).
Hmmm. I wasn't the person making the allegation that only "13%" had been spent on searching...
Are you totally incapable on reading up on this, on this forum or elsewhere ?
Well here's one link to help you on your way.
http://joana-morais.blogspot.com/2009/02/only-13-of-money-was-spent-looking-for.html
I await any independent forensic audit to show the claims of 13% are wrong.
Don't bother with the mccann supporting sites and blogs on this.
Enid O'Dowd didn't seriously cite a tabloid article by Levy as an authoritative source, did she?
by Enid O’Dowd FCA, giving her opinion after analysis of the 'fund'.
http://mccannfundfraud.info/2010/02/a-forensic-examination-of-the-company-accounts/
THE CHOICE TO READ THE LINK IS YOURS.
Could you extract the bit that refers to only "13%" without having to wade through the whole thing?
Read the extract.
I feel sure you are capable of doing that.
By the way, there are numerous other references to that quantity.
Just use Google. 8((()*/
That doesn't answer my question concerning your allegation... surely it would be simple to extract what that was based on and post it?
That doesn't answer my question concerning your allegation... surely it would be simple to extract what that was based on and post it?
It is a definitive statement.
It therefore requires a definitive answer.
I am beginning to suspect it is yet another unsupported slur passed from forum to forum until it becomes "fact".
An appropriate cite will allay that suspicion.
The links are there, can't you read ?
and by the way, links to the figure quoted are widely available.
Yet you seem to be ignoring them
The links are there, can't you read ?
and by the way, links to the figure quoted are widely available.
Yet you seem to be ignoring them
Unnessasarily rude response to a civil request for a cite. As required by forum rules.
Grow up Stephen.
Look up Enid O'Dowd.
She has no axe to grind.
Her analysis is widely available on the internet.
If you are saying otherwise, that is a lie.
Hang on, Stephen... You made the allegation about the "13%" issue. Does that feature in Enid O'Dowd's analysis or not?
Simple question.
Read it.
Look up Enid O'Dowd.
She has no axe to grind.
Her analysis is widely available on the internet.
If you are saying otherwise, that is a lie.
Percentage of money received spent on search for Madeleine
It has been stated in the media, probably inaccurately, that only 13% of expenditure for this period related to searching for Madeleine. However, it is not clear what this percentage actually is because some of the cost headings require clarification, in particular legal and professional fees.
Here is the relevant passage from Stephen's link - lol.
Ia this the same Enid O'Dowd who travelled from wherever expecting to give evidence to support Bennett concerning the Madeleine Fund at his trial on a charge of contempt of court?Yes it's the same person - no axe to grind whatsoever, no sirree bob.
Or are they both different people with identical names in the same court room on the same date over an issue concerning the same missing child?
Ia this the same Enid O'Dowd who travelled from wherever expecting to give evidence to support Bennett concerning the Madeleine Fund at his trial on a charge of contempt of court?
Or are they both different people with identical names in the same court room on the same date over an issue concerning the same missing child?
.. and of course no mccann supporter on here has an axe to grind either on behalf of the mccanns.
As to Ms. O'Dowd, exemplary in her work and no one has contermanded hee analysis of the accounts.
and we have yet to here from any mccann source teal independently audited figures of the money spent on 'searching'. 8)-)))
I'm still back to the same question, Stephen... what substantiates the "13%" allegation?
.. and of course no mccann supporter on here has an axe to grind either on behalf of the mccanns.
As to Ms. O'Dowd, exemplary in her work and no one has contermanded her analysis of the accounts.
and we have yet to here from any mccann source an independently audited figure of the money spent on 'searching'. 8)-)))
Stephen - you made the statement, so it is up to you to provide evidence. You portrayed Enid O'dowd as someone with no axe to grind - really?.
Having read her "analysis", my opinion differs from yours - in my view the "analysis" reeks of bias, and she is of course a mate of Bennetts and called by him as a witness in his court case so hardly unbiased.
1/10 for effort. 8(0(*
As has been pointed out - even the "no axe to grind" FCA that you have cited says " It has been stated in the media, probably inaccurately, that only 13% of expenditure for this period related to searching for Madeleine. However, it is not clear what this percentage actually is because some of the cost headings require clarification, in particular legal and professional fees"
So - where did the 13% claim come from? Or do you wish to withdraw it?
I will not withdraw that figure as it is given on numerous internet articles, as any search will reveal.
As to biased, O'Dowd is no more biased against the mccanns than you are biased in favour of them.
So JP how much of the funds have the mccanns spent on searching ? 8**8:/:
So this "13%" wasn't actually the result of a forensic analysis then?
Ask Ms. O'Dowd.you said it was 13%, why are you asking Carana?
Now Carana how much of the fund have the mccanns spent searching ?
Ask Ms. O'Dowd.
Now Carana how much of the fund have the mccanns spent searching ?
Stephen - you made the statement. It's up to you to back it up or withdraw it.
If you want your views to be taken seriously that is.
Well I never.So despite Enid O'Dowd (someone you appear to believe is very credible) doubting the accuracy of 13% you accept it as fact do you?
Never seen that line before from a mccann supporter.
I have no intention of withdrawing that figure.
I did not make it up.
It is easily found by an Internet search.
Unlike of course amy independently verified figures from the mccanns demonstrating the among or percentage of the fund spent on the so called search.
As to being taken seriously JP, do you really think I take you or other mccann supporters seriously, who day by day type the pro-mccann mantra on this forum ?
So despite Enid O'Dowd (someone you appear to believe is very credible) doubting the accuracy of 13% you accept it as fact do you?
Well I never.
Never seen that line before from a mccann supporter.
I have no intention of withdrawing that figure.
I did not make it up.
It is easily found by an Internet search.
Unlike of course amy independently verified figures from the mccanns demonstrating the among or percentage of the fund spent on the so called search.
As to being taken seriously JP, do you really think I take you or other mccann supporters seriously, who day by day type the pro-mccann mantra on this forum ?
Oh dear Stephen - I've got to hand it to you. By citing Enid o'dowd you have successfully disproved your own statement about the '13%' - absolute genius!!
Can't wait for the next one. 8(0(*
...and just to help you a little further.
http://frommybigdesk.blogspot.co.uk/2009/02/mccanns-spent-only-13-of-madeleine-fund.html
The "Madeleine," Fund received nearly 3 million Euros from private donors, but the accounts do not explain where all the money has gone and do not even mention payments on the McCanns' mortgage or mobile phones.
See the original Madeleine Fund accounts (in English) on the SOS Madeleine McCann web site.
The fund, "Leaving No Stone Unturned Limited," created by Kate and Gerry McCann, nine days after Madeleine's disappearance from the apartment in Praia da Luz, received, up to March 2008, nearly three million Euros in donations, but only 13.3% of the money has been squandered, the couple say, in the investigations to find their daughter.
The Madeleine Fund accounts from May 2007 to March 2008 were only disclosed after TVI touched on a few aspects of the use to which the McCanns put the money, in the programme "As Tardes da Julia."
LOL
Here's two letters to describe the effectiveness of the 'search'.
FC
Now how much did the mccanns spend on 'searching' then ?
I'm still waiting an answer.
I have given cites, whilst you and the rest of your compatriots have given two more letters of the alphabet. 8)-)))
I'm not sure what FC means... Football Club? Or something rude?
You have tried, Stephen, I'll grant you that.
It was a sensationalist anti-McCann headline at the time which seems to have lasted as "fact".
What is the 13% meant to include?
This is drifting off topic, however:
Does it really matter whether or not it was 13% spent on searching ?. One could argue quite convincingly that all expenditure was on searching as that is the primary objective of the company and there appear to be no objections raised by the auditors i the reports published.
Without doubt “The Fund” has spent ca £3.3MM in an attempt to achieve the following objectives.
2B.1.1 To secure the safe return to her family of Madeleine McCann who was abducted in Praia da Luz, Portugal on Thursday 3rd May 2007; and
2B.1.2 To procure that Madeleine's abduction is thoroughly investigated and that her abductors, as well as those who played or play any part in assisting them, are identified and brought to Justice.
So why not have a review of what has been achieved after eight and a bit years and lobbing out £3.3MM?.
Including but not limited to:
How many of the stated objectives have been achieved?
Does progress thus far represent value for money?
What is the estimated level of funding to achieve any outstanding objectives?.
How will this funding be raised?
...and just to help you a little further.
http://frommybigdesk.blogspot.co.uk/2009/02/mccanns-spent-only-13-of-madeleine-fund.html
The "Madeleine," Fund received nearly 3 million Euros from private donors, but the accounts do not explain where all the money has gone and do not even mention payments on the McCanns' mortgage or mobile phones.
See the original Madeleine Fund accounts (in English) on the SOS Madeleine McCann web site.
The fund, "Leaving No Stone Unturned Limited," created by Kate and Gerry McCann, nine days after Madeleine's disappearance from the apartment in Praia da Luz, received, up to March 2008, nearly three million Euros in donations, but only 13.3% of the money has been squandered, the couple say, in the investigations to find their daughter.
The Madeleine Fund accounts from May 2007 to March 2008 were only disclosed after TVI touched on a few aspects of the use to which the McCanns put the money, in the programme "As Tardes da Julia."
You are actually citing Jill Havern, and Duarte Levy as impartial sources Stephen?
A small piece of advice for you - when you are in a hole - STOP DIGGING!
*&*%£ *&*%£ *&*%£
Oh dear Stephen - I've got to hand it to you. By citing Enid o'dowd you have successfully disproved your own statement about the '13%' - absolute genius!!
Can't wait for the next one. 8(0(*
Known in debate as a genetic fallacy.
Known in debate as a genetic fallacy.
You're not suggesting that the board of directors don't consider such questions, are you?
Getting an investigation reopened in Portugal seems to have required somewhat more effort than a "stamp on a letter" (as Amaral et al., asserted at one point).
The fund states that the money was to be used in the search for Madeleine and to help the parents.
If someone comes along and writes a book saying the child is dead and the parents are responsible for hiding her body. Then the money [as it is there to help the family] can use it in order to stop the accusations being made as the public will assume the child is dead and there is no need to continue to search for her or give any information regarding where she may be.
Of course not!
I didn't think so, but it was worth clarifying just in case it gives someone the idea to start yet a new petition to launch yet another full public inquiry with powers to summon witnesses...
I thought it might make a topic that didn't include a percentage and whether or not the "forensic accountant" was Boy George's mum 8(0(*. The latter could have a few legs in it I suppose.
At least we know the gross amount spent so there is no guesswork about it. Maybe that's why it will not take off ?{)(**
The fund states that the money was to be used in the search for Madeleine and to help the parents...(snip)The aim "To provide support, including financial assistance, to Madeleine’s family" was removed by a special amendment many years ago, it is an ex-aim, it no longer exists.
It shows a rare talent. 8(0(*
I was of course referring to your argument.
The other problem is that it covers the period to 31st March 2008 - during which the pj were investigating, the mccanns were aguidos etc etc. the Scope for private investigating was a bit limited.
We can take no responsibility for Jean's genes. 8)--))
So basically are we all agreed that from the completely legal but rather brief accounts at CH it is impossible for anyone but a psychic to get any idea of how much income was recieved or how much was spent?
The initial injunction against Amaral's book was overturned and the McCanns, I think, got the bill. Now it's been banned by the defamation judge will they still have to pay that first legal bill or will the latest judgement change the first one?
Of course Amaral's fund is not in his name, it's just for his benefit. He has received none of the money and has no control over it. It is used only for legal fees, so we know where it goes.
That all sounds very simple and straightforward G - so why the decision NOT to publish what must be the equally 'simple and straightforward' accounts? Maybe there is a good reason - but I for one can't think what it could be.
It seems discourteous to the donators to keep them completely in the dark - and even more discourteous not to even offer an explanation for that decision.
That all sounds very simple and straightforward G - so why the decision NOT to publish what must be the equally 'simple and straightforward' accounts? Maybe there is a good reason - but I for one can't think what it could be.
It seems discourteous to the donators to keep them completely in the dark - and even more discourteous not to even offer an explanation for that decision.
I know more about it than I do about a certain other fund. Impressive to see someone say they have enough, I think;
Since it was started on April 29, 2015, by Leanne Baulch, the gofundme page dedicated to Gonçalo Amaral's defence has collected donations in excess of 50 thousand pounds. These funds have been transferred to the bank account that is held by Dr Paulo Sargento and other friends of Mr Amaral. Less than half of this amount has been spent on legal expenses for the defence of Gonçalo Amaral.
The Paypal account that is associated to the bank account has received over 6 thousand euro during the same period. Donations totaling a smaller amount have also been made directly to the bank account.
We believe that it is time to close the gofundme page, as the bank account currently stands at an amount that seems largely sufficient to face eventual future expenses.
As we await the verdict of the Appellate Court of Lisbon on the appeal that has been filed by Mr Amaral's lawyer, the remaining funds will be kept in the bank account. They will be used if necessary in the future. Any unused funds will, as we stated in 2009, be donated to a Portuguese children's charity.
I know more about it than I do about a certain other fund. Impressive to see someone say they have enough, I think;
Since it was started on April 29, 2015, by Leanne Baulch, the gofundme page dedicated to Gonçalo Amaral's defence has collected donations in excess of 50 thousand pounds. These funds have been transferred to the bank account that is held by Dr Paulo Sargento and other friends of Mr Amaral. Less than half of this amount has been spent on legal expenses for the defence of Gonçalo Amaral.
The Paypal account that is associated to the bank account has received over 6 thousand euro during the same period. Donations totaling a smaller amount have also been made directly to the bank account.
We believe that it is time to close the gofundme page, as the bank account currently stands at an amount that seems largely sufficient to face eventual future expenses.
As we await the verdict of the Appellate Court of Lisbon on the appeal that has been filed by Mr Amaral's lawyer, the remaining funds will be kept in the bank account. They will be used if necessary in the future. Any unused funds will, as we stated in 2009, be donated to a Portuguese children's charity.
One fund claiming to be transparent isn't, another making no such claims isn't. Now which one has a problem?
IMO Starti your post is off topic - as this isn't a comparison between two unrelated funds.
Can you think of a reason WHY a decision has been taken by Amaral and his friends NOT to publish their accounts?
I can't.
Why do you need to know about a fund used for Amaral's legal needs ?
I don't.
I'm trying to think of a reason why a decision NOT to publish simple accounts was taken - and a statement issued instead. Can you think of one?
I don't.
I'm trying to think of a reason why a decision NOT to publish simple accounts was taken - and a statement issued instead. Can you think of one?
I don't.
I'm trying to think of a reason why a decision NOT to publish simple accounts was taken - and a statement issued instead. Can you think of one?
You first have to demonstrate that the idea of publishing accounts was discussed and rejected.
I find it hard to believe that such a natural course of action as publishing simple and straightforward accounts for the benefit of those people who have donated - would not have occurred to the people managing the accounts. It seems the courteous thing to do IMO and also would have the added advantage of there being no room left for criticism.
If it was a difficult/expensive exercise to achieve - then I could at least understand that thinking to some extent - but IMO that's not the case. TBH I'm surprised that Amaral has not insisted that the accounts be published. And I still can't think of a reason why they haven't been. Can you?
IIRC the only reason given so far is that there is no legal requirement to do so. That seems rather churlish to me. (from memory so am happy to be corrected if necessary),
I find it hard to believe that such a natural course of action as publishing simple and straightforward accounts for the benefit of those people who have donated - would not have occurred to the people managing the accounts. It seems the courteous thing to do IMO and also would have the added advantage of there being no room left for criticism.
If it was a difficult/expensive exercise to achieve - then I could at least understand that thinking to some extent - but IMO that's not the case. TBH I'm surprised that Amaral has not insisted that the accounts be published. And I still can't think of a reason why they haven't been. Can you?
IIRC the only reason given so far is that there is no legal requirement to do so. That seems rather churlish to me. (from memory so am happy to be corrected if necessary),
One fund claiming to be transparent isn't, another making no such claims isn't. Now which one has a problem?
AFAIK none the people who donated have expressed a desire to see details of what has been paid out.
You.
The McCanns' fund is transparent.
Just as it says on the tin.
Has Enid O'Something donated? If so, when would this have been?
You.
The McCanns' fund is transparent.
Just as it says on the tin.
What was the income and expenditure last FY then?
I'm not an accountant and I don't know how to read accounts.
But those who can (and whose opinions I trust) tell me it's all in apple-pie order.
Perhaps Jean-Pierre would be a better one to answer that (for example, there are doubtless several others).
I'm not an accountant and I don't know how to read accounts.
But those who can (and whose opinions I trust) tell me it's all in apple-pie order.
Perhaps Jean-Pierre would be a better one to answer that (for example, there are doubtless several others).
You.
The McCanns' fund is transparent.
Just as it says on the tin.
I'm not an accountant and I don't know how to read accounts.It's the smallest apple-pie I ever saw Ferryman :)
But those who can (and whose opinions I trust) tell me it's all in apple-pie order.
Perhaps Jean-Pierre would be a better one to answer that (for example, there are doubtless several others).
I'm (slowly) getting the hang of this, I think.
If it's in the file and Amaral states it, the McCanns can't touch him: hence the mantra of Amaral (and those who support him), it's all in the files.
But is it?
And what about stuff in the files, but contradicted by other stuff also in the files?
And what about half-truths?
It's in the files that Eddie scented death all over the place.
It's also in the files (both Grime and Harrison) that no evidential reliability can be placed on the reactions of the dogs.
What's the status of that one?
Amaral says Harrison turned the investigation into one for a little girl assumed dead.
That is a blatant lie (more pertinently, not in the files). Amaral should lose the libel case outright on that point alone.
We can't definitively judge, but we can confidently predict that Amaral did not contradict and correct Prior on the forensic results. If he (Amaral) did not, that is an assertion of Amaral's not in the files.
Amaral makes reference to the STU 100 and there is also reference to it in the files. But Grime's reference makes plain he is not talking about the PdL investigation at all, while Amaral claims it was (used in the investigation).
And since Amaral's claim of its use is at variance with its actual use, we can be sure Amaral was lying. Still, the key point; reference in the file, context bogus.
Does Amaral get away with that one?
So far as I am aware, there is no reference (at all!) in the file to the McCanns' fund.
Yet Amaral says it is fraudulent.
What on earth is the basis of Amaral's appeal?
These accounts are the finest in the district.
These accounts are the finest in the district.
These accounts are the finest in the district.
I guess it all boils down to a question of what was found proved.
If it was found proved that those statements had been made, then fair enough.
If it was found proved that the statements were true then there is something seriously awry.
It was not within the remit of the judge to examine the veracity of anything in fhe files.
Which district?The Thurmond Street district.
so what the hell is happening with amaral's appeal.....not a very good advert for portuguese justiceHow many weeks since the appeal was lodged? Compare with the 40 odd weeks it took to come up with a bit of paper containing essentially just one number
The Thurmond Street district.
The ch accounts are the finest in the district because they are so clean.
Uncontaminated by details like income and expenditure.
They contain as much detail as there is cheese in a completely out-of-stock cheese shop.
The Thurmond Street district.yet still more crumbs to examine than those left by the mysterious disappearing Gonc Fund... &%+((£
The ch accounts are the finest in the district because they are so clean.
Uncontaminated by details like income and expenditure.
They contain as much detail as there is cheese in a completely out-of-stock cheese shop.
The Thurmond Street district.
The ch accounts are the finest in the district because they are so clean.
Uncontaminated by details like income and expenditure.
They contain as much detail as there is cheese in a completely out-of-stock cheese shop.
yet still more crumbs to examine than those left by the mysterious disappearing Gonc Fund... &%+((£
A "forensic examination" even.
Surely capable of turning up the icing on the cake ... after years of practice.
yet still more crumbs to examine than those left by the mysterious disappearing Gonc Fund... &%+((£The MF accounts contain only one number, that's all.
Expenditure?
Normally sir yes, but today the van broke down.
Income?
Sorry, it got a bit runny and the cat's eaten it.
(bouzouki music playing in the background)
But Misty I think your CH accounts give a total income figure and total expenditure figure.
MF this year don't.
It wasnt their money they were soending, it was the publics.....ergo they had no RIGHT go hide anything
The returns submitted by the accountant do give breakdowns, as you say, but the only information available to the public is the cash in the bank, the assets & the liabilities. The gross/net turnover is not shown, or the amount of Corporation Tax we pay, nor do I think that is something which should be available other than to people who may wish to trade with us. Our accounts are probably more complex than LNSU.MF in latest CH filing does not state total income (in previous years it did).
Pity you don't view the other "fund" in the same manner. Do you know how much PJGA raised in Holland & Germany?Surely a non-profit company implementing the GGC should tell you the income total not leave you to "imagine" or guess it Misty?
Since OG was launched, I would imagine there has been precious little donated to the FMF by the general public. Most of the funding has probably come from private backers.
Surely a non-profit company implementing the GGC should tell you the income total not leave you to "imagine" or guess it Misty?
The Gonc fund tells its donators what its income is (and exactly what it is spent on).
Why is it that mccann supporters are quite happy for the mccanns to have a fund which can pay their legal expenses, but not Amaral ?
Tough question. &%&£(+ &%&£(+ &%&£(+
Good Moaning, Stephen. You and me both. Personally, I don't much care what either side does with their Funds. But how much longer do we have to wait for a decision? The suspense is killing me.
Why is it that mccann supporters are quite happy for the mccanns to have a fund which can pay their legal expenses, but not Amaral ?
Tough question. &%&£(+ &%&£(+ &%&£(+
Not tough at all Stephen. And as usual with your 'pronouncements' not even true.
Good Moaning, Stephen. You and me both. Personally, I don't much care what either side does with their Funds. But how much longer do we have to wait for a decision? The suspense is killing me.
Was that a typo?
*&*%£
Other company records filed at Company House don't give a breakdown of the Income & Expenditure online. I believe you have to pay for that (we pay £1000+ each year just for our unaudited accounts to be prepared & submitted to CH by our accountant - why should anyone else get that info for free?)
The returns submitted by the accountant do give breakdowns, as you say, but the only information available to the public is the cash in the bank, the assets & the liabilities. The gross/net turnover is not shown, or the amount of Corporation Tax we pay, nor do I think that is something which should be available other than to people who may wish to trade with us. Our accounts are probably more complex than LNSU.
Is there not a facility to purchase the details any interested party may require on the relevant website?PJGA certainly does tell donators how much income it recieves.
And please - the PJGA does not tell all its donators what its income & expenditure is - or I would have been told.
PJGA certainly does tell donators how much income it recieves.
In period 29 Apr 2015 to 21 Oct PJGA recieved >£50K through GFM and >E6K through PP.
LOL 6 months out of 6 years. What about the rest of the money donated - how much did that amount to? They're still promoting the Paypal button on Twitter about 50 times a day.
You really can't stomach that people have donated to Amaral's legal expenses.
I believe it has been stated any money left after the appeals process, will go to charity.
Oh dear Stephen - It seems that all this 'objection' to amarals defence fund is all in your head. Most sensible people see that a properly funded defence is essential to justice.
Some however are concerned about the apparent double standards as regards transparency.
I anticipated that entirely predictable reply.
Sensible people do believe Amaral's fund is essential for justice.
However, I wasn't talking about sensible people.
As to transparency, tell that to the mccanns.
Oh, by the way, what happened to the money the mccanns received from serialization rights in the 'sun' ?
I would say no one on this forum begrudges the donations to amaral's fund...the last thing we would want is posters claiming he has been denied justice...we want to savour the moment
Either Portuguese justice is moving as slowly as usual or they are thinking very deeply about the case. If it's the latter, then it perhaps isn't quite such an obvious and simple case as some seem to believe. There's the view of the judge that it was right to ban the book again, thereby overturning a supreme Court decision. I bet that's caused some head scratching.
Either Portuguese justice is moving as slowly as usual or they are thinking very deeply about the case. If it's the latter, then it perhaps isn't quite such an obvious and simple case as some seem to believe. There's the view of the judge that it was right to ban the book again, thereby overturning a supreme Court decision. I bet that's caused some head scratching.The Portuguese justice system is an international joke (as confirmed time and again by international assessors) - and the McCann v Amaral case has been the most deplorable of utter farces.
Why?
The supreme court ruled on the right of free speech versus the right to reputation (both guaranteed by the Portuguese constitution). Something had to give, and the McCanns' right to a good name gave ....
The ruling in the libel judgment was that Amaral was guilty of libel.
He might have gotten away with statements that lower reputation if they had been contained uncontradicted in the files.
They didn't.
So Amaral lost.
The Portuguese justice system is an international joke (as confirmed time and again by international assessors) - and the McCann v Amaral case has been the most deplorable of utter farces.
So far, it's taken them 6 years and 8 months and still they're way off a final verdict.
We've all been witness to this unending saga of judicial incompetence - and basically it's all about a bloke who wrote a book about a shelved investigation, the vast majority of which had been made public anyway by means of a handy and free DVD!
It's a very true saying that 'justice delayed is justice denied' - to both sides in this case
In the period 29 Apr 2015 to 21 Oct 2015 PJGA recieved >£50K through GFM and >E6K through PP.PJGA reported on sums of money donated which were publicly available on the GFM site. Precious little else.
I compliment PJGA on their transparent reporting to donaters.
What was MF's income in the same period?
Even supporters can only imagine or guess.
Because MF haven't released any figures at all for that period, and possibly won't until late Dec 2016.
If you can't see a contradiction there that's fine. I can. Supreme Court; freedom of speech trumps the right to reputation. Libel judge; Right to reputation trumps the right to freedom of speech. That wasn't her actual ruling, but the effect of her ruling was to curtail his freedom of speech.
Very true.Six years ago a quick decision might have been relevant. At this stage everyone who wants to has read the book. Everyone who wants to has read the files on which the book is (mostly) based. Whatever the outcome no-one wins really.
If the McCanns were trying to clean up their reputations that hasn't happened. For those who believe in them their reputations were never tarnished anyway and for those who don't the final judgement won't change their minds. I suppose they'll enjoy having his money, if they get it and telling the newspapers how it 'wasn't about the money' and it'll all be used for 'the search' (unless they have to pay lawyers to sue someone else, of course).
At this stage I expect Amaral has become accustomed to being poorer than he expected, so the money will be no loss. I think his faith in Portuguese justice system will be dented and he cares about that, rather misguidedly in my opinion.
If you can't see a contradiction there that's fine. I can. Supreme Court; freedom of speech trumps the right to reputation. Libel judge; Right to reputation trumps the right to freedom of speech. That wasn't her actual ruling, but the effect of her ruling was to curtail his freedom of speech.
Amaral does not have a right to spread disinformation and lies, either by Portuguese libel laws or the Portuguese constitution.
Lies he told:
Harrison changed the enquiry to one for a little girl assumed dead (oh no he did not)
Prior contradicted and 'corrected' Prior on interpretation of the forensic results and Prior berated the FSS on the PJ's powers of arrest.
We can confidently predict that's a lie.
The Scent Transfer Unit detects cadaver odour. It detects (and stores) scents of living people.
The McCanns set up a fraudulent fund. The fund is not mentioned at all in the files, and there's no evidence it is fraudulent.
Madeleine died in the apartment (says Amaral). On what evidence?
Grime and Harrison both say no evidential reliability can be placed on the reactions of the dogs.
All reasons why Amaral's book is not based on the files and why he is likely to lose his appeal (if he hasn't already).
Crime remains undetermined ferryman, no matter how much you may fantasize about abduction.
It does not make abduction real.
Amaral does not have a right to spread disinformation and lies, either by Portuguese libel laws or the Portuguese constitution.
Lies he told:
Harrison changed the enquiry to one for a little girl assumed dead (oh no he did not)
Prior contradicted and 'corrected' Prior on interpretation of the forensic results and Prior berated the FSS on the PJ's powers of arrest.
We can confidently predict that's a lie.
The Scent Transfer Unit detects cadaver odour. It detects (and stores) scents of living people.
The McCanns set up a fraudulent fund. The fund is not mentioned at all in the files, and there's no evidence it is fraudulent.
Madeleine died in the apartment (says Amaral). On what evidence?
Grime and Harrison both say no evidential reliability can be placed on the reactions of the dogs.
All reasons why Amaral's book is not based on the files and why he is likely to lose his appeal (if he hasn't already).
Amaral does not have a right to spread disinformation and lies, either by Portuguese libel laws or the Portuguese constitution.
Lies he told:
Harrison changed the enquiry to one for a little girl assumed dead (oh no he did not)
Prior contradicted and 'corrected' Prior on interpretation of the forensic results and Prior berated the FSS on the PJ's powers of arrest.
We can confidently predict that's a lie.
The Scent Transfer Unit detects cadaver odour. It detects (and stores) scents of living people.
The McCanns set up a fraudulent fund. The fund is not mentioned at all in the files, and there's no evidence it is fraudulent.
Madeleine died in the apartment (says Amaral). On what evidence?
Grime and Harrison both say no evidential reliability can be placed on the reactions of the dogs.
All reasons why Amaral's book is not based on the files and why he is likely to lose his appeal (if he hasn't already).
There has been no ruling on the truth or otherwise of the book. It wasn't banned because it was judged untruthful, much as you'd like to think so.
Amaral could get away with lies so long as those lies were reflected in what's written in the files; or more pertinently not contradicted in the files.
Hence, he will not get away with saying Eddie 'scented death' all over the place, because although it is written in the files (that he did, Almeida) Harrison and Grime both say he didn't.
And Amaral will not get away with saying Harrison changed the enquiry to one for a little girl assumed dead because that is a lie (contradicted by Harrison himself).
And Harrison will only get away with saying he contradicted Prior on the forensic results if there is a report (somewhere) which says that; also that Prior rang the FSS to berate them on the PJ's powers of arrest if (again) there is a report indicating that (not in the publicly released files) ....
It was not up to Harrison or Grime to say Eddie scented death or not.
It is the job of the forensic department to evaluate any evidence collected.
It was Amaral who lied (in his book) that Harrison and Grime did say those things.
It's why Amaral will lose the libel trial ....
If he hasn't already.
Amaral made mistakes.
However, the biggest mistake in this case is the mccanns saying they exhibited 'responsible parenting skills'.
Without which, we would not be on here now.
Nothing to do with Amaral, whom you you clearly hate, as do the mccanns.
yet other people purport the same theory as he does, yet the mccanns don't take them to court.
Why is that ?
Perhaps they thought he was an easy target.
It was an English barrister (specialising in family law) who said the McCanns actions were 'within bounds of responsible parenting'.
But then what do barristers who specialise in family law know ...
Lawyers generally say what their clients pay them to say.
It was an English barrister (specialising in family law) who said the McCanns actions were 'within bounds of responsible parenting'.
But then what do barristers who specialise in family law know ...
Do you have his/her name and the precise quotation ?
Probably not. They are more into libel and reputation management.
It might even have been a 'spokesman' saying what a lawyer said, rather than the lawyer himself
Do you have his/her name and the precise quotation ?The incident is covered on p124 of Kate's book. The barrister is not named, but from wearing a bow tie, braces and a Panama hat, I assume the barrister is male. His expertise is not covered. There was also a paralegal from the International Family Law Group. AFAIK, barristers do not work within such groups, but it could be the barrister got hoiked in as IFLG had used his services before.
Then why did grime give an opinion...and why did the pj ask him if the alerts were to cadaver
It was not up to Harrison or Grime to say Eddie scented death or not.
It is the job of the forensic department to evaluate any evidence collected.
It could well be Jassi.
I hardly think any Barrister would say it's perfectly OK to go out drinking, and leave 3 children under the age of 4 by themselves.
Do you have his/her name and the precise quotation ?The precise quotation of what the barrister professionally advised is "well within the bounds of reasonable parenting" and the source is KM book page 124. IMO the name is certainly not impossible to find.
So basically what we have is a hearsay statement of what was said by an unidentified person.
The precise quotation of what the barrister professionally advised is "well within the bounds of reasonable parenting" and the source is KM book page 124. IMO the name is certainly not impossible to find.
a barrister would want more facts than that...which is what he hadIndeed davel, the professional legal advice quoted in KM book p124 was not given from the office in London - it was given in PDL on May12/13, after the advisor had viewed the walking distance and visibility from the tapas restaurant table to the child bedroom (at carpark end of apartment 5A).
It was Amaral who lied (in his book) that Harrison and Grime did say those things.
It's why Amaral will lose the libel trial ....
If he hasn't already.
So basically what we have is a hearsay statement of what was said by an unidentified person.
So basically what we have is a hearsay statement of what was said by an unidentified person.Fairly reliable hearsay of what was said (and presumably written) by an
It would seem that way.
... and what does it matter?Good point. Has the phrase "well within the bounds of reasonable parenting" been mentioned by either side in the legal case and its appeals?
... and in what way does it relate to the Amaral appeal?
... and what does it matter?
... and in what way does it relate to the Amaral appeal?
Grime didn't say the dogs didn't scent death.
(snip) ... and in what way does it relate to the Amaral appeal?Because the advice to claim responsible parenting, the advice to start a fund, and the advice to do ward of court, all came in one parcel.
Good point. Has the phrase "well within the bounds of reasonable parenting" been mentioned by either side in the legal case and its appeals?
Why would it be?This ongoing court case would never have happened IMO had it not not been for that very early parcel of legal advice, because that caused the fund to be started and the ward of court to be obtained, both of which directly enabled the court case.
Again...
The judge's job was to examine a civil case, not a criminal one (which had never come to court).
This ongoing court case would never have happened IMO had it not not been for that very early parcel of legal advice, because that caused the fund to be started and the ward of court to be obtained, both of which directly enabled the court case.
Lawyers generally say what their clients pay them to say.
Why would it be?
Again...
The judge's job was to examine a civil case, not a criminal one (which had never come to court).
The judge didn't want to know whether the dogs were reliable or not, either. Not her job.
It is plain common sense that Martin Smith agreed to produce an efit only because he had changed his mind about the man the Smiths all saw being Gerry.
I'm (slowly) beginning to understand that, now.
The judge compared what was written in the book with what was written in the files.
If they matched, Amaral could say it (true or not).
In that sense, the judge did not adjudicate on what was 'true' or 'not true', just whether it was faithful to the files.
Unsure of the status of stuff in the files, but contradicted by other stuff, also in the files.
It's in the files that Eddie 'scented death' all over the place; also in the files (Grime and Harrison) that no evidential reliability could be placed on the dogs' reactions.
Where does Amaral stand on that one?
Amaral said Harrison changed the direction of the investigation into one for a little girl assumed dead and buried (in close vicinity to PdL), an outright distortion (of the files). Harrison formed no fixed conclusion, but proffered the opinion that if death had occurred, it was most likely Madeleine's remains had been jettisoned into the sea ....
Amaral claimed the Scent Transfer Unit is a device for detecting death scent. It is used for trapping and storing scents of living people.
Amaral's conclusion diametrically contradicts the conclusion of the Portuguese prosecutors.
I've no clue how the court that overruled the injunction concluded Amaral's book is based on the files.
It is plain common sense that Martin Smith agreed to produce an efit only because he had changed his mind about the man the Smiths all saw being Gerry.
And so on.
Amaral is up against it.
Were you present at every meeting between Amaral and Harrison?
It would have been irrelevant if anyone had been.
It's a civil case, not a criminal one.
I'm (slowly) beginning to understand that, now.
The judge compared what was written in the book with what was written in the files.
If they matched, Amaral could say it (true or not).
In that sense, the judge did not adjudicate on what was 'true' or 'not true', just whether it was faithful to the files.
Unsure of the status of stuff in the files, but contradicted by other stuff, also in the files.
It's in the files that Eddie 'scented death' all over the place; also in the files (Grime and Harrison) that no evidential reliability could be placed on the dogs' reactions.
Where does Amaral stand on that one?
Amaral said Harrison changed the direction of the investigation into one for a little girl assumed dead and buried (in close vicinity to PdL), an outright distortion (of the files). Harrison formed no fixed conclusion, but proffered the opinion that if death had occurred, it was most likely Madeleine's remains had been jettisoned into the sea ....
Amaral claimed the Scent Transfer Unit is a device for detecting death scent. It is used for trapping and storing scents of living people.
Amaral's conclusion diametrically contradicts the conclusion of the Portuguese prosecutors.
I've no clue how the court that overruled the injunction concluded Amaral's book is based on the files.
It is plain common sense that Martin Smith agreed to produce an efit only because he had changed his mind about the man the Smiths all saw being Gerry.
And so on.
Amaral is up against it.
So in your view it would be irrelevant if Harrison had said to Amaral, "you need to look for a body close by".
Yes it is becoming clear now
So when in proved facts it states the dog alerted to cadaver
It is a proven fact it is in the files
No more
I'm (slowly) beginning to understand that, now.
The judge compared what was written in the book with what was written in the files.
If they matched, Amaral could say it (true or not).
In that sense, the judge did not adjudicate on what was 'true' or 'not true', just whether it was faithful to the files.
Unsure of the status of stuff in the files, but contradicted by other stuff, also in the files.
It's in the files that Eddie 'scented death' all over the place; also in the files (Grime and Harrison) that no evidential reliability could be placed on the dogs' reactions.
Where does Amaral stand on that one?
Amaral said Harrison changed the direction of the investigation into one for a little girl assumed dead and buried (in close vicinity to PdL), an outright distortion (of the files). Harrison formed no fixed conclusion, but proffered the opinion that if death had occurred, it was most likely Madeleine's remains had been jettisoned into the sea ....
Amaral claimed the Scent Transfer Unit is a device for detecting death scent. It is used for trapping and storing scents of living people.
Amaral's conclusion diametrically contradicts the conclusion of the Portuguese prosecutors.
I've no clue how the court that overruled the injunction concluded Amaral's book is based on the files.
It is plain common sense that Martin Smith agreed to produce an efit only because he had changed his mind about the man the Smiths all saw being Gerry.
And so on.
Amaral is up against it.
Which bit of legal advice led to the creation of the fund?This is the advice which caused the fund to be created
The judge wasn't interested in that, she was interested in only two things.
1. Did Amaral breach Judicial secrecy.(by writing his book before the case files were released)
2. Was he bound (by virtue of being a retired policeman) to uphold the presumption of innocence of the couple.
Her conclusions were yes and yes.
She was interested in to what extent Amaral's book reflected what was written in the files.
Anything that deviated from what was written in the files (and lowered the McCanns' reputation) counted against him in the libel trial.
The judge was not interested (it was not her place to judge) in whether the files, themselves, represented truth or untruth.
But where Amaral's book, matched against what is written in the files, was concerned, that was the judge's benchmark. Points (of Amaral's book) that deviated from what was written in the files (and lowered the reputations of the McCanns) counted against Amaral in the judgement.
There was shed-loads ....
So in your view it would be irrelevant if Harrison had said to Amaral, "you need to look for a body close by".
Who paid the legal expenses of starting this civil case in 2008?
It was the many ordinary kind people who donated to Madeleine's Fund Leaving No Stone Unturned Limited
"Chairman's statement for the year ended 31 March 2009 ....... We have: ........ paid for legal representation for Kate, Gerry, S... and A..... in Portugal, enabling them to obtain an injunction, banning Mr Amaral from repeating his fabricated claims about Madeleine's abduction ........"
(I corrected 2 typos which were in the original document)
In the absence of a statement by Mr Smith that is pure speculation on your part. Mr Smith has never declared publicly that he changed his mind.
I am currently of the opinion on the available information and statistical datasets that if death has occurred, that it is possible that Madeleine McCann’s body has been disposed into the sea at Praia da Luz. (See my second report entitled “NPIA OP TASK Search Doc Beach and Marine”).Also by MH (Processos IX p2227)
Mark Harrison.
I have to agree with 'ferryman' here and respectfully suggest that it is far from 'speculation' that Martin Smith 'changed his mind'.
Surely it is obvious that he did for these among the following reasons:
1. He was publicly quoted in the media in 2008 as supporting the abduction, asking people to help in the search for Madeleine and look for the abductor (forget the exact quote)
2. He agreed as early as December 2007 or January 2008 to speak to Brian Kennedy and Metodo 3, knowing that they were acting for the McCanns
3. He clearly subsequently agreed to at least put his name to the two e-fits (whatever doubts I and not a few others have about his capacity to do so, a year after the event
4. Almost certainly he consented to the McCanns suggesting twice, within the May 2009 Channel 4 'Mockumentary, strongly suggesting that Smithman and Tannerman were one and the same
5. Again he must be presumed to have consented to an audio summary of his evidence being placed on the McCanns' website in May 2009 (and it's still there today, 7 years later)
6. His evidence was used by Kate McCann again in 7 pages of her book, 'madeleine' (May 2011) to advance the case that Smithman and Tannerman were one and the same, and finally
7. His two admitted meetings with DCI Andy Redwood, one in 2012 and the other in 2013, must again be taken as presumed, if not proactive, co-operation with BBC Crimewatch, who in their show of 14 October 2013 made the two efits, quote, 'the centre of our focus'.
The only way in which you can argue @ John that he did not willingly 'change his mind' would be to suggest that he has been threatened, or otherwise forced, to change his mind.
(I leave out from this post all the many obvious issues that arise from his controversial evidence, given 4.5 months after the event, that he was '60% to 80% sure' it was Gerry McCann that he had seen 4.5 months earlier, based basically on his claim that Gerry was carrying Sean over his shoulder the same way as the man he alleged that he'd seen)
Also by MH (Processos IX p2227)
"In relation to the dead body scent if such a scent is indicated by the EVRD it may suggest that a body has been in the property but removed"
My eyes glaze over at accountancy.In the financial year ending 31 March 2009, there was no partition of the limited company's money into "money donated by ordinary people to be spent on actual searching" and "money obtained by threatening civil legal action, to be spent on initiating civil legal action abroad".
However, have you taken into account the payouts from various newspapers?
Wednesday 19 March 2008 08.20 GMT
Last modified on Friday 8 January 2016 15.47 GMT
The Daily Express and Daily Star carried unprecedented front page apologies to Gerry and Kate McCann today for publishing more than 100 articles on the disappearance of their daughter, Madeleine, some of which suggested the couple were involved in her death .
After being threatened with legal action over the articles dating back almost 11 months to when their daughter first went missing, the newspapers, owned by Richard Desmond, also agreed to pay out what it called "a very substantial sum".
http://www.theguardian.com/media/2008/mar/19/dailyexpress.dailystar
Also by MH (Processos IX p2227)
"In relation to the dead body scent if such a scent is indicated by the EVRD it may suggest that a body has been in the property but removed"
In the financial year ending 31 March 2009, there was no partition of the limited company's money into "money donated by ordinary people to be spent on actual searching" and "money obtained by threatening civil legal action, to be spent on initiating civil legal action abroad".
Money donated by ordinary people was in part used to pay the legal expenses of obtaining the injunction against
Mr Amaral.
(snip)... have you taken into account the payouts from various newspapers? ... (snip)The payouts from newspapers were all spent on actual search Carana
http://www.theguardian.com/media/2008/mar/19/dailyexpress.dailystar
It MAY suggest... that's one possibility. What are the others?Another possibility might be that an absorbent object, which had been in sufficient contact with a body outside the property, had then been brought into the property, and had sufficient contact with some part of the property (a shelf, a floor, etc) and then the object was removed from the property?
Another possibility might be that an absorbent object, which had been in sufficient contact with a body outside the property, had then been brought into the property, and had sufficient contact with some part of the property (a shelf, a floor, etc) and then the object was removed from the property?
My main point is that the NPIA expert uses the phrase "dead body scent", but probably some posters would claim there is no such thing?
Careful, you will upset the cynophobes.
Careful, you will upset the cynophobes.This comment is designed to goad supporters, is it not?
This comment is designed to goad supporters, is it not?
This comment is designed to goad supporters, is it not?
It depends if they consider themselves cynophobes?
It depends if they consider themselves cynophobes?
then you do not understand the meaning of the word
Oh I do.
then you have used it in an insulting manner which is unacceptable behaviour
No just pointing out the truth. Some people are scared of the dogs, admittedly only in this context.
No just pointing out the truth. Some people are scared of the dogs, admittedly only in this context.
Your reasoning is very poor.....I haven't seen anyone on here whom is scared of the dogs...certainly not me...you are wrong and quoting opinion as fact...what I see on here are posters who don't understand the alerts .... it seems you are one of them...the only phobia I suffer from is dumasaphobia
That's why wee gerry mccann mentioned them in the trial.
Perhaps he should have taken up the advice he gave to Sandra. 8)-)))
I understand the alerts, you however seem to believe that the most likely cause of the alerts is the one that should be discounted and ignored.
I suspect you do not understand the alerts...what do the alerts tell us
It depends if they consider themselves cynophobes?You clearly believe such people post on this forum otherwise you wouldn't have made the comment, ergo it was clearly designed to goad, not only that but it was a cheap shot at all McCann supporters, none of whom have a clinical phobia of dogs as far as I'm aware. Perhaps you were just trying to show off with you new big word.
You clearly believe such people post on this forum otherwise you wouldn't have made the comment, ergo it was clearly designed to goad, not only that but it was a cheap shot at all McCann supporters, none of whom have a clinical phobia of dogs as far as I'm aware. Perhaps you were just trying to show off with you new big word.
No just pointing out the truth. Some people are scared of the dogs, admittedly only in this context.Insulting claptrap. Why can we not be critical of the dog alerts without being labeled scared of dogs? The alerts are ancient history, what's to be scared of?
I much prefer...dumasaphobia
You clearly believe such people post on this forum otherwise you wouldn't have made the comment, ergo it was clearly designed to goad, not only that but it was a cheap shot at all McCann supporters, none of whom have a clinical phobia of dogs as far as I'm aware. Perhaps you were just trying to show off with you new big word.
Fear of Alexandre Dumas ?
Tell that to the McCanns, I'm sure they will listen to your advice. 8)--))
If of no importance to the McCanns, they would not have continued to diss them.
Tell that to the McCanns, I'm sure they will listen to your advice. 8)--))The only importance of the dog alerts is as a weapon in the on-going battle of words between numpties like us on internet chatrooms. In the real world those alerts were consigned to the dog bowl of history eons ago.
If of no importance to the McCanns, they would not have continued to diss them.
Presumably SY had not told MS at the time of his meetings with them that Tannerman had been identified.Oh to have been a fly on the wall when Redwood met Martin Smith.
I think this is one of the main things that seperate the sceptics from supporters...sceptics think the alerts have some significance...supporters having a better understanding...do not
Oh to have been a fly on the wall when Redwood met Martin Smith.
I wouldn't really like to have Martin Smith as a witness on my side though:
Does nothing for 13 days...
Then the moment Murat is made an arguido his son rings up and says 'Dad was I dreaming or did we see someone carrying a child on the same day as Madeleine went missing?'...
Then, to quote, "We all remembered that we had the same recollection'...
4.5 months later he again delays (11 days this time) before telling the police: "I saw Gerry on the telly carrying Sean - I'm sure it's the same man - well, about 60% to 80% anyway..."
Just months later he's singing from the McCanns' hymn sheet...
And has been ever since...
And he's given us efits of two quite different-looking men...
Very, very strange
Spot-on. And forum mores and prohibitions preclude comment of (just) critique of the way the dogs were handled ...
No. No one fears the dogs. We just wonder whether the McCanns would, ever, have been constituted arguido/a if the dogs had been handled properly.
I fear we are wandering off-topic, though.
Amaral's appeal.
Is there any news of it?
The payouts from newspapers were all spent on actual search Carana
chairman's statement year ending 31 Mar 2008:
"... the Express Group ... substantial cash donation ... has enabled us to continue our search for Madeleine..."
chairman's statement year ending 31 Mar 2009:
"... other newspapers followed suit with accompanying donations ... this has enabled us to continue our search for Madeleine..."
The proceeds from newspapers were spent on search, therefore the costs of getting the injunction against Mr A was paid from ordinary donations?
In your opinion, do you think the Smith family would have been so prepared to reproduce those e-fits for the police if they had known Tannerman had most likely been identified & eliminated?This is one of very many questions about the actions of the Smiths which can only be answered by, at best, an educated guess.
This is one of very many questions about the actions of the Smiths which can only be answered by, at best, an educated guess.
For example, why did it take 13 days to report their sighting?
Did Martin Smith honestly believe it was Gerry McCann he saw on Thursday 3 May?
Were the family really capable of drawing up those two detailed e-fits of different-looking men, one whole year after they'd only seen his partially-hidden face for a few seconds at most in the dark, and all told the police in Portimao on 26 May 2007 that they'd never be able to recognise him if they saw him again?
Why within the space of less than 4 months (Sep 07 to Jan 08) did Martin Smith switch from saying it was Gerry McCann he saw carrying away a child, to actively working with the McCann Team?
To answer your question, some time in early 2008 Martin Smith committed himself to the McCann cause, and has allowed the McCanns ever since early 2009 to make full use of the sighting as they saw fit - but without reproducing the efits.
I don't think it matters one whit whether Martin Smith knew or didn't know that Redwood was planning to say that Tannerman was actually Crecheman.
He is sticking to his story that he and his family really did see someone (dressed remarkably like Wojchiech Krokowski) with a child in pink pyjamas at about 10pm on 3 May - and that the man looked like two different men as revealed on the efits. He probably has no view on Tannerman/Smithman
It all seems deeply mysterious to me
Oh to have been a fly on the wall when Redwood met Martin Smith.IMO neither of the 2 efits is by MS.
I wouldn't really like to have Martin Smith as a witness on my side though:
Does nothing for 13 days...
Then the moment Murat is made an arguido his son rings up and says 'Dad was I dreaming or did we see someone carrying a child on the same day as Madeleine went missing?'...
Then, to quote, "We all remembered that we had the same recollection'...
4.5 months later he again delays (11 days this time) before telling the police: "I saw Gerry on the telly carrying Sean - I'm sure it's the same man - well, about 60% to 80% anyway..."
Just months later he's singing from the McCanns' hymn sheet...
And has been ever since...
And he's given us efits of two quite different-looking men...
Very, very strange
The only importance of the dog alerts is as a weapon in the on-going battle of words between numpties like us on internet chatrooms. In the real world those alerts were consigned to the dog bowl of history eons ago.
Agreed.
In the Matthews case, the UK police checked out potential innocent explanations and eventually discovered the reason, which had nothing to do with the child.
If a certain coordinator had been in charge, the child could have been assumed murdered and the extended family members charged with the usual menu of crimes. Meanwhile a living little girl was holed up waiting to be rescued...
You would have thought with the resources available, the McCanns would have uncovered the innocent explanation in this case.
they have
Go on then?
It is abundantly clear, if the 'alerts' didn't worry the mccanns and some of their supporters, then they wouldn't keep on about them.
YET THEY DO.
abusive post...reported
is it not against forum rules to call posters liars...what is the forum coming to when mods call posters liars
It's against the rules if not true. I said they could have identified an innocent reason, you said they had, then you said the alerts are unreliable which is not an innocent explanation. We can only assume you lied, unless of course you made a mistake.
Gerry has said the alerts are extremely unreliable......that is an innocent expalnation......you are are a liar as I have not lied
It is abundantly clear, if the 'alerts' didn't worry the mccanns and some of their supporters, then they wouldn't keep on about them.
YET THEY DO.
The possibility that she did indeed die in 5A can't be excluded 100% at this time, irrespective of what actually prompted Eddie to react and what he may have reacted to.
Even if it had been found that a bloodied band-aid had been left around for a while and had been picked up by the cleaning lady, it might be a "satisfactory explanation" of an alert (and other incidents that had taken place over time could plausibly explain others), it still wouldn't totally exclude the possibility that she had died there.
The bottom line is still that the dogs are an asset (tool) to help the police find evidence... but none was found.
something I have been saying for along time but some posters cannot accept the truth...bopth the mccanns and those supporting them understand this and that is why the alerts are of absolutely no concern
Do you think Operation Grange has been a waste of time and money? They are looking for a body and using dogs just like Amaral did in 2007. Nothing has changed and there's has been no updates about new forensic tests.
Gerry has said the alerts are extremely unreliable......that is an innocent expalnation......you are are a liar as I have not lied
If they can, defense lawyers will produce evidence of innocence in court. If they can't, they will try to discredit prosecution evidence of guilt. Gerry McCann's lawyers intended to use the evidence presented by the lawyers in the Zapata case should the McCanns be charged. The Zapata lawyers had no evidence of innocence, so they used the 'unreliability' argument to convince the Judge that the cadaver dog alerts were of no use. They were successful, but we now know the dogs were right.
How embarrassing picking proven NOT to be unreliable dogs in the Zapata case.
"Zapata said in that statement he went to the family's home on Indian Trace on the morning of Oct. 11, 1976, to discuss things with his estranged wife and wound up in an argument which escalated and became violent. He said he took a draftsman's weight out of a drawer and struck his wife in the head, then strangled her, first with his hands and then with a cord, to make sure she was dead. After cleaning up her blood, he rolled his wife into a tent, then drove to the rural area east of Madison where he dumped her body in a wooded area he believes along what is now Reiner Road.
Later, he bought a piece of property in Juneau County and used a U-Haul trailer to take the body from the woods and dump it on his new property in Juneau County, covering it with loads of dirt. The body stayed there for some 24 years. In 2001, after he had remarried and retired from state work, he decided to move to Nevada. Before making that move, he retrieved the body again, this time putting it in a rented storage locker in Sun Prairie.
Zapata's plans began to unravel in late 2004, when Peggy Weekly, a longtime friend of Jeanette's, contacted the Madison Police department to ask whatever had become of the investigation into her friend's disappearance. That led detectives to review the old case and, by August of 2006, they were satisfied they had enough evidence to convict Eugene of first-degree murder.
Detectives had two prongs of new evidence that wasn't available in 1976: cadaver sniffing dogs which appeared to show that Zapata had kept the body in various homes he, his children and his new wife lived in while in Madison, at the Sun Prairie storage locker and at the Juneau County landfill. They also had a set of detailed notes Zapata kept of his wife's whereabouts and with whom she was associating in the days when the couple was estranged.
But that was not enough to convict Zapata. Last Fall, jurors deliberated for some four days before telling Dane County Circuit Court Judge Patrick Fiedler they were hopelessly deadlocked: 10 wanting to convict and one holding out for an acquittal with one juror undecided.
Prosecutors said they would bring Zapata to trial again but instead reached a plea bargain. He agreed to plead to the far lesser charge of reckless homicide and face a maximum of five years in prison. With time off for good behavior, allowed under 1976 law, he will serve about three years and one month before being freed.
Part of that deal called for Zapata to make a complete and truthful confession to detectives and, Assistant District Attorney Robert Kaiser said, he has done that.
As they renewed their investigation, Zapata said, he went to the Sun Prairie storage center, cut up the remains of the body, put it into plastic bags and put them in a dumpster at the Juneau County Landfill."
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/news/1972541/posts
How is the Zapata case related to Amaral's appeal?
I understand the alerts, you however seem to believe that the most likely cause of the alerts is the one that should be discounted and ignored.
It's obvious, isn't it?
Rather than (as widely touted I think!,) being the McCanns' trump-card, the Zapata case will be Amaral's trump card, the deciding factor in reserving the legal tide in the libel trial and that will see Amaral, after all, triumph ....
I understand the alerts, you however seem to believe that the most likely cause of the alerts is the one that should be discounted and ignored.
If they can, defense lawyers will produce evidence of innocence in court. If they can't, they will try to discredit prosecution evidence of guilt. Gerry McCann's lawyers intended to use the evidence presented by the lawyers in the Zapata case should the McCanns be charged. The Zapata lawyers had no evidence of innocence, so they used the 'unreliability' argument to convince the Judge that the cadaver dog alerts were of no use. They were successful, but we now know the dogs were right.They could have drawn on numerous examples of unreliability in this area, Zampo the cadaver dog for one.
They could have drawn on numerous examples of unreliability in this area, Zampo the cadaver dog for one.
Think?
That the alerts should be ignored is both what the law says and what common sense decrees ....
The law says they can't be used as evidence, not ignored.
could you provide a cite where the law states they cannot be ignored
When you provide one that says they should be, which is what is being claimed.The law says they can't be used as evidence, not ignored.
The law says they can't be used as evidence, not ignored.
The law says they can't be used as evidence, not ignored.
this is your claim...can you substantiate it...the answer is no
alerts should be ignored is ... what the law saysso up to him to substantiate.
ferryman stated so up to him to substantiate.
ferryman stated so up to him to substantiate.
The only importance of the dog alerts is as a weapon in the on-going battle of words between numpties like us on internet chatrooms. In the real world those alerts were consigned to the dog bowl of history eons ago....and Mr R employed two welsh cadaver dogs and ground-penetrating radar to dupe us numpties into imagining he was searching for something cadaver dogs and ground-penetrating radar search for - a cunning plan indeed!
...and Mr R employed two welsh cadaver dogs and ground-penetrating radar to dupe us numpties into imagining he was searching for something cadaver dogs and ground-penetrating radar search for - a cunning plan indeed!
ferryman stated so up to him to substantiate.
The law says they can't be used as evidence, not ignored.
It's obvious, isn't it?
Rather than (as widely touted I think!,) being the McCanns' trump-card, the Zapata case will be Amaral's trump card, the deciding factor in reserving the legal tide in the libel trial and that will see Amaral, after all, triumph ....
Ignored by a court of law.
Because they can't be used as evidence.
Just need to wait a bit longer to see how that is going to pan out.
Here we are on the 1st March 2016 and not a whisper from the appeal court in Lisbon. Clearly they are struggling to bring closure to this case and still maintain some credibility. The pressures on the Judges must be huge.
Here we are on the 1st March 2016 and not a whisper from the appeal court in Lisbon. Clearly they are struggling to bring closure to this case and still maintain some credibility. The pressures on the Judges must be huge.
Here we are on the 1st March 2016 and not a whisper from the appeal court in Lisbon. Clearly they are struggling to bring closure to this case and still maintain some credibility. The pressures on the Judges must be huge.
I think the courts are under pressure, but simply due to number of cases. So its a case of patience. Decision should be sometime this year, ish.
a brief quote from Chambers and Partners website:
"On the basis of historic evidence, it is estimated that the second instance courts take on average between six months and one year to decide an appeal, and that the Supreme Court will take on average three to six months to issue a final decision."
http://www.chambersandpartners.com/guide/practice-guides/location/241/6617/1422-200
The first-instance decision was handed down on 28 April 2015.
So we aren't all that far from 11 months since then.
Shouldn't be that much longer ....
The first-instance decision was handed down on 28 April 2015.
So we aren't all that far from 11 months since then.
Shouldn't be that much longer ....
I can scarcely contain my curiosity................... 6&%5%
Good God, has it been that long? Doesn't the time fly when one is having fun.
However, what redress after the decision has been made, for either party?
Me neither.
Whatever the outcome of the appeal, it will only be about whether he had the legal right to write / narrate what he did (and even then in only his book, "documentary" and one article).
Even if the case is overturned and he wins the appeal, it would not mean that whatever he said / wrote is accurate in terms of what happened to the child... just that he had the right to express his view, however garbled his understanding appears to be.
If the appeal-court decision precisely replicates the decision of the court of first-instance, that's it.
The decision of the court of first instance will be final and binding and will be irrevocably enforced.
The McCanns will have won.
And Amaral will have lost.
And GofundmeGocalo?
Heaven only knows.
Will quietly implode, I guess ....
Thank You for that. I have almost lost the plot on this one.
But what happens if The Court of Appeal reduces the amount of Damages?
Thank You for that. I have almost lost the plot on this one.
But what happens if The Court of Appeal reduces the amount of Damages?
I think it will be simply down to how much money was awarded. The Judge didn't leave much room for anything else.
If Portuguese Law allows for any old person to say what they like, then the only other redress is against the person who said it, and from where they got their information, and under what circumstances.
I thought that The Judge made that quite plain.
If the finding is identical that would seem to be the end of the road.
If the findings are different, there may be an avenue to send the case up to the Supreme Court.
Sh*t. I did think so. Although hardly really important. But it might suggest a different level culpability.
Sh*t. I did think so. Although hardly really important. But it might suggest a different level culpability.
Normally, an appeal to the SC would be about interpretations of law.
An exception to a regular appeal (prior to an SC review) would be a criminal trial involving a jury, which is not the case here. The reasoning being that a jury trial is supposed to provide an additional layer of "objectivity".
Don't know what to say about that. I understand perfectly an Interpretation of Law, albeit always only an Opinion.
But did Amaral, or did he not abuse his role?
AFAIK, it will be about whether he had the legal right, in view of his former position, to state what he did, when he did, and present it as fact.
His appeal is likely to be that he was technically free from any former professional obligations to shut up. There does seem to be a grey area over when this shut up period may be considered to have ended.
On the other hand, it's impossible to launch a book, ready to go on sale, 3 days after the archiving despatch had been made public without those involved in the publishing industry being aware of the contents. *
That is likely to be part of the issue... and if there are no precedents, it may be complicated.
* ETA: he therefore breached the confidentiality regulation while he was still a serving officer.
His objection is likely to be that this breach is of a lower order (an administrative offence) than his constitutional right to full freedom of speech.
It was said at the time of the preliminary injunction five years ago that the McCanns intended to file a criminal complaint against Amaral for breaking Judicial secrecy. I read somewhere that the PJ interviewed him about it, but nothing seems to have come of it.
Madeleine McCann's parents are to lodge a complaint with Portuguese police claiming that former detective Goncalo Amaral broke his country's strict judicial secrecy laws.
http://news.sky.com/story/752000/mccanns-to-claim-ex-cop-broke-secrecy-laws
I suppose the question arising is if a judge in a civil case can issue a judgement on a criminal matter.
It was said at the time of the preliminary injunction five years ago that the McCanns intended to file a criminal complaint against Amaral for breaking Judicial secrecy. I read somewhere that the PJ interviewed him about it, but nothing seems to have come of it.
Madeleine McCann's parents are to lodge a complaint with Portuguese police claiming that former detective Goncalo Amaral broke his country's strict judicial secrecy laws.
http://news.sky.com/story/752000/mccanns-to-claim-ex-cop-broke-secrecy-laws
I suppose the question arising is if a judge in a civil case can issue a judgement on a criminal matter.
Iirc it was thrown out of court
Not sure about that. I can't think what else a PJ disciplinary measure dating back to 30 June 2010 could be about (if indeed that's the starting date and not some mid-point concerning something else).
Well let us know when you find out so far its not hit the headlines..this and one other was theown out with a flea ear, ask mrs duarte
Not sure about that. I can't think what else a PJ disciplinary measure dating back to 30 June 2010 could be about (if indeed that's the starting date and not some mid-point concerning something else).
If it was to do with Judicial Secrecy the penalty of 500 Euros would suggest it's a fairly minor offence. The Supreme Court ignored it in the first book banning carry-on. Then along comes a Judge who uses it as one of the main points of her judgement.
It wouldn't have been relevant to the injunction, I wouldn't have thought, but would explain a separate complaint, if one was ever filed.
Not sure about that. I can't think what else a PJ disciplinary measure dating back to 30 June 2010 could be about (if indeed that's the starting date and not some mid-point concerning something else).
http://joana-morais.blogspot.com/2010/01/attempt-to-breach-secrecy-of-justice.html
Whats this all about then?
AFAIK, it will be about whether he had the legal right, in view of his former position, to state what he did, when he did, and present it as fact.
His appeal is likely to be that he was technically free from any former professional obligations to shut up. There does seem to be a grey area over when this shut up period may be considered to have ended.
On the other hand, it's impossible to launch a book, ready to go on sale, 3 days after the archiving despatch had been made public without those involved in the publishing industry being aware of the contents. *
That is likely to be part of the issue... and if there are no precedents, it may be complicated.
* ETA: he therefore breached the confidentiality regulation while he was still a serving officer.
His objection is likely to be that this breach is of a lower order (an administrative offence) than his constitutional right to full freedom of speech.
(snip) ... Polícia JudiciáriaCarana the small amount 500 euro suggests this might be just a matter of a lawyer missing a deadline to register as assistant (in which event the registration fee is doubled to about 500 euro)???
Aviso (extrato) n.o 11666/2013
Nos termos e para os efeitos do disposto no n.o 3 do artigo 25 do Regulamento Disciplinar da Polícia Judiciária publicado no Decreto-Lei n.o 196/94 de 21 de julho, na impossibilidade, confirmada, de proceder à notificação pessoal, por ausência, em parte incerta, notifica-se o Coordenador de Investigação Criminal, na situação de aposentado, Licenciado Gonçalo de Sousa Amaral, que por despacho da Ministra da Justiça, de 26 de agosto de 2013, foi concedido provimento parcial do recurso hierárquico por si interposto do ato recorrido consubstanciado no despacho do Diretor Nacional Adjunto, de 30 de junho de 2010, tendo a pena disciplinar de multa no montante de 500,00 € sido mantida e a suspensão na sua execução sido reduzida de dois para o período mínimo de um ano, começando esta a produzir efeitos decorridos 15 dias após a publicação deste aviso no Diário da República.
6 de setembro de 2013. — Pela Diretora da Unidade, João Prata Augusto.
http://legislacaoportuguesa.com/aviso-extrato-n-o-116662013-d-r-n-o-180-parte-c-serie-ii-de-2013-09-18/
Carana the small amount 500 euro suggests this might be just a matter of a lawyer missing a deadline to register as assistant (in which event the registration fee is doubled to about 500 euro)???
Carana the small amount 500 euro suggests this might be just a matter of a lawyer missing a deadline to register as assistant (in which event the registration fee is doubled to about 500 euro)???
Do you mean about a thousand euros?I read a similar trivial thing about Joana case where a fee of of 200+ euro ??? for a lawyer to register as assistante was doubled for being late but sorry I lost the link Ferryman
What is what about?
Did the mccanns/duarte win a case aganst amaral for breaking the secrecy of justice laws?
I've no idea whether a court case was ever intended over it or not. Duarte may simply have complained to the PJ, which might explain the sanction.
(snip)....The sum of 500 euros is obviously far to small to be a fine for breach of secrecy. For example, in another case the same amount is is simply the total of the fee for lawyer to file as assistant and a fine for doing it late. Translated of Correio Da Manha 25 10 2008 "The Lawyers’ Order was fined over approximately 200 euros because it failed to pay the amount of judicial expenses to become an assistant in the process, within the deadlines. According to what CM was able to establish with a judicial source, it wasn’t until yesterday morning, when the trial was scheduled to begin, that the payment was made. Thus, the constitution as an assistant cost the double amount: almost 500 euros, including the fine"
http://legislacaoportuguesa.com/aviso-extrato-n-o-116662013-d-r-n-o-180-parte-c-serie-ii-de-2013-09-18/
The sum of 500 euros is obviously far to small to be a fine for breach of secrecy. For example, in another case the same amount is is simply the total of the fee for lawyer to file as assistant and a fine for doing it late. Translated of Correio Da Manha 25 10 2008 "The Lawyers’ Order was fined over approximately 200 euros because it failed to pay the amount of judicial expenses to become an assistant in the process, within the deadlines. According to what CM was able to establish with a judicial source, it wasn’t until yesterday morning, when the trial was scheduled to begin, that the payment was made. Thus, the constitution as an assistant cost the double amount: almost 500 euros, including the fine"
@ Pegasus,Here is law 196/94, in which the relevant part is article 25 item 3
There is a confusing issue.
I find it highly unlikely that there would have been a "regular" court case concerning the breach of judicial secrecy. There is, however, a system for dealing with offences relating to the PJ.
There is a whole hierarchy involved in PJ sanctions depending on the gravity, and the sanctions have an escalating range of consequences.
This one appears to have been issued by the deputy head of the PJ (which corresponds to one of the lower levels of santions). The more serious the offence, the higher the decision-making body - which makes sense.
This one was decreed by the deputy national director, whereas booting Amaral off the case was a decision by the national director (Ribeiro, at the time).
However, a sanction decreed by the PJ isn't necessarily the end of the legal process. Again, see Cristóvão re the Joana case in which he got a 120-day suspension from the PJ disciplinary unit, but which appears to have been a separate issue to the torture trial.
Here is law 196/94, in which the relevant part is article 25 item 3
http://dre.tretas.org/dre/60685/
Much too complicated for me. More interesting is why political figures were still involved in the PDL investigation during the early arguido period from 7 Sept to 2 Oct.
Thanks for that link to the PJ disciplinary regulations, as I'd only had a jpeg version of it.So publishing a decision in DdaR legally has the same effect as notifying the person directly.
25 item 3 only appears to concern the process in the event that there is no clear means of personally delivering a judicial notice to someone.
3 - No caso de impossibilidade confirmada de notificação pessoal, a decisão punitiva é publicada, por extracto, no Diário da República, 2.ª série, começando a produzir efeitos decorridos 15 dias após essa publicação.
Thanks for that link to the PJ disciplinary regulations, as I'd only had a jpeg version of it.
25 item 3 only appears to concern the process in the event that there is no clear means of personally delivering a judicial notice to someone.
3 - No caso de impossibilidade confirmada de notificação pessoal, a decisão punitiva é publicada, por extracto, no Diário da República, 2.ª série, começando a produzir efeitos decorridos 15 dias após essa publicação.
Don't know if this is relevant or not ... I remember reading that at one stage Mr Amaral had no fixed abode, probably before he moved back into his father's house after his marriage break-up.
Don't know if this is relevant or not ... I remember reading that at one stage Mr Amaral had no fixed abode, probably before he moved back into his father's house after his marriage break-up.That may be the solution Brietta - no response to a letter sent old address? But do the dates match?
That may be the solution Brietta - no response to a letter sent old address? But do the dates match?
No idea of the date, Pegasus or even where I read it and what the context was.
So yesterday marked the 11th month since the decision of the court of first instance.
What news of Amaral's appeal?
What news of gofundme justice goncalo?
On the basis that neither side is turning handsprings and a whoopin' an' a hollerin' I would lay my purse on there being no news on either score at present
The McCanns have declared themselves very pleased with the result (of the court of first-instance).
That Amaral has appealed would tend to indicate he is less pleased ....
Yes they are very pleased in trying to obtain more money.
Is that, perhaps, a tacit admission (of characteristically ill-grace) that the McCanns are outright winners at first-instance?
The McCanns have declared themselves very pleased with the result (of the court of first-instance).
That Amaral has appealed would tend to indicate he is less pleased ....
Is that news?
I thought you asked for news?
So we fast approach the first anniversary of the decision of the court-instance in the libel trial (in exactly a fortnight from today).
What news of Amaral's appeal?
So we fast approach the first anniversary of the decision of the court-instance in the libel trial (in exactly a fortnight from today).
What news of Amaral's appeal?
There's no news as to what the PJ investigators are doing. There's no news as to what Operation Grange are doing. Why the fixation with what the appeal court is doing?
There's no news as to what the PJ investigators are doing. There's no news as to what Operation Grange are doing. Why the fixation with what the appeal court is doing?
It the 1st anniversary coming up, perhaps the McCann could organise an event to mark the occasion.
Depositing quite a large cheque into the Madeleine Appeal Fund sounds like a fair idea.
I thought there was a time limit on appeals to the Portuguese courts, if so this one seems to be exceeding it.
Anyone have any ideas? Is the delay the norm, or is this unusual?
The appeal was made last October. Appeals take from six months up to a year. So no delay at all.
The appeal was made 2nd of September 2015. Appeals take from six months up to a year. So no delay at all.
If the appeal was only lodged last October, then Amaral was too late.
He had 40 calendar days (from the point of the issue of the decision of the court of first instance) to lodge it, which would have been some point in June.
October would have been way too late ...
Why do you bother with that.
You know it was, and it was explained to you some time ago, on this forum.
Know what was?
And know what convoluted formula of words passed as an explanation?
Thanks Ferryman and thanks to you too Parapono ... so we could be talking from any time now until 2nd of September 2016.Thanks for the welcome:-)
So until then ... no delay.
Good to have you posting ... a belated welcome to the forum.
The appeal was made last September. See PJGA. Appeals take from six months up to a year. So no delay at all.
Edited to correct the date. It was on the 2nd of September 2015.
on what basis do you make the claim that appeals take 6 months to a year...how accurate is it
See Jean-Pierre's post further up on this thread please.
If the appeal was only lodged last October, then Amaral was too late.
He had 40 calendar days (from the point of the issue of the decision of the court of first instance) to lodge it, which would have been some point in June.
October would have been way too late ...
Parapono has amended post ... date when appeal lodged was 2nd of September 2015.
I had overlooked that the clock (on when an appeal decision is announced) starts ticking from the point that it is submitted, not from when the decision of the court of first-instance is handed down.
Still, Amaral had 40 calendar days (from when the first-instance judgement was made) to lodge his appeal.
End of April until the end of June would have been (roughly) 30 days, then he'd have had until about 10 July to submit his appeal.
2nd September would have been way too late.
So if he got his appeal in on time, the time-frame (for a decision) would be within the next couple of months
PT has been overhauling the management of their judicial system, with quite a few hiccups along the way. There has also been a massive backlog in civil appeals cases to deal with (dating back years), plus the fact that appeals seem to be accepted far more easily than in other jurisdictions.
This might take some time...
For those concerned about Amaral's fund.
http://laidbareblog.blogspot.co.uk/2016/04/dear-[ censored word ]-of-fund-for-amaral.html
Sorry, the page you were looking for in this blog does not exist.
Hmmmm!
Incorrect ferryman, as per usual.
Go on Amazon,
Words blocked by filter on here. &%+((£
Obscenity blocked by filter.
This board gets most things right ...
Sorry, the page you were looking for in this blog does not exist.http://bit.ly/1XCKt5y
Hmmmm!
What the organisers if amarals defense fund do with the money is of no particular concern to me personally but I know a few people have raised questions, as they are entitled to do.
There are undoubtedly some curious things - a few of the donations were odd - a couple of examples:
apparently a group of anonymous met police donated exactly £1000.
A donation of £8000 was made twice a few days apart.
Any questions about the fund could be very easily laid to rest by publishing the bank statements showing monies in and monies out. Why has this not been done?
Has a full and total breakdown of
fun the mccanns accounts been given, including funds from serialisation rights and other articles in the media ?
and if they have made money, how many PEOPLE can claim to have made money from the disappearance of their own child ?
What the organisers if amarals defense fund do with the money is of no particular concern to me personally but I know a few people have raised questions, as they are entitled to do.That £1000 pound donation stated it was from "an anonymous but very large group of brit police officers". IMO it is obviously not from an actual police force, but is probably from a national association.
There are undoubtedly some curious things - a few of the donations were odd - a couple of examples:
apparently a group of anonymous met police donated exactly £1000.
A donation of £8000 was made twice a few days apart.
Any questions about the fund could be very easily laid to rest by publishing the bank statements showing monies in and monies out. Why has this not been done?
That £1000 pound donation stated it was from "an anonymous but very large group of brit police officers". IMO it is obviously not from an actual police force, but is probably from a national association.
Re the 2 donations of £8000 from a non-police inter-national group of people, I suggest GFM have a maximum allowed amount per donation, and the donation of £16000 was split into two simply because it exceeded that maximum.
These donations were genuine, documented and processed by a professional and highly-regarded company, there is nothing dodgy about them at all.
A donation from a 'national association'. Really? So why anonymous? And this would have to be agreed, voted, etc etc. You are having a larf.It's good that you are not disputing that someone did donate £1000.
I have no problem with Gofundme. They simply provide a service and by all account quite efficiently. It's what happens at the 'receiver' end that interests me. That is when Gofundme have paid out to the bank account. Simply publishing a copy of the bank account statement would clear this up.
It makes me wonder what is so difficult..,,,,
It's good that you are not disputing that someone did donate £1000.
And someone did donate £16000.
Can't be denied really because GFM certainly processed and documented those donations.
A donation from a 'national association'. Really? So why anonymous? And this would have to be agreed, voted, etc etc. You are having a larf.
I have no problem with Gofundme. They simply provide a service and by all account quite efficiently. It's what happens at the 'receiver' end that interests me. That is when Gofundme have paid out to the bank account. Simply publishing a copy of the bank account statement would clear this up.
It makes me wonder what is so difficult..,,,,
It's good that you are not disputing that someone did donate £1000.
And someone did donate £16000.
Can't be denied really because GFM certainly processed and documented those donations.
Somewhat off topic Stephen - this thread is concerned with amarals appeal. And the funding of that appeal is of course pertinent. But an expected attempt to deflect the argument.
The mccanns fund has been formally audited by a specialist firm of chartered accountants. I am not suggesting that amarals defence fund goes that far - just publishing a copy of the bank statement will do. Showing dates, credits and debits.
Rather like they processed a donation from the Sun Newspaper?It's not rocket science, the person administering the PJGA GFM appeal lived in Portimao, and the PJGA bank account is at a bank in Lisbon. And the MF company registered address is in a city where none of its directors live. And the registered addresses of some of its directors are places they do not live. This is all normal banking/legal stuff Misty - nothing suspicious at all.
Do you know why, when LB name was removed from the GFM appeal, the account location was shown as Portimao but the PJGA BPI branch account is located in Lisbon?
It's not rocket science, the person administering the PJGA GFM appeal lived in Portimao, and the PJGA bank account is at a bank in Lisbon. And the MF company registered address is in a city where none of its directors live.
And the registered address of at least one of its directors is in a city 100 miles from where they live. This is all normal banking/legal stuff Misty - nothing suspicious at all.
It's not rocket science, the person administering the PJGA GFM appeal lived in Portimao, and the PJGA bank account is at a bank in Lisbon. And the MF company registered address is in a city where none of its directors live. And the registered addresses of some of its directors are places they do not live. This is all normal banking/legal stuff Misty - nothing suspicious at all.
(snip) everything but clear (snip)At least you can't accuse the latest accounts of being over-cluttered with details.
At least you can't accuse the latest accounts of being over-cluttered with details.
It is abundantly clear, as per normal, that the supporters are trying any avenue they can to imply the Amaral fund is non kosher.Even having a bank account in a capital city is now questioned.
Even having a bank account in a capital city is now questioned.
Even having a bank account in a capital city is now questioned.
So Sargento no longer administers the fund?Mr Sargento is a strong supporter of Mr Amaral and therefore I assume he is still very much involved in PJGA.
Even having a bank account in a capital city is now questioned.
There seems to be a bit of a blind spot here, Pegasus. Madeleine's Fund which is audited and published is scrutinised and criticised to the nth degree. Whereas Mr Amaral's fund is not subject to the same criteria or any criteria at all. To a disinterested observer that would appear to be double standards.
It would be very simple to issue a statement of money in ... and without prejudice to the minutia of the way in which Mr Amaral chooses to spend it on his legal appeal ~ a note of his outgoings.
Apart from any other consideration ... when the fund runs low, his backers would know it was time to dig deep yet again.
There seems to be a bit of a blind spot here, Pegasus. Madeleine's Fund which is audited and published is scrutinised and criticised to the nth degree. Whereas Mr Amaral's fund is not subject to the same criteria or any criteria at all. To a disinterested observer that would appear to be double standards.
It would be very simple to issue a statement of money in ... and without prejudice to the minutia of the way in which Mr Amaral chooses to spend it on his legal appeal ~ a note of his outgoings.
Apart from any other consideration ... when the fund runs low, his backers would know it was time to dig deep yet again.
In context, Brietta's use of the word disinterested is absolutely semantically correct, meaning, impartial, or free of bias.The remit of the auditors is only to confirm that the accounts meet the legal requirements
The mccanns accounts are from open and give base details.
Amaral's fund is there solely for legal expenses, and excess from which I believe will be donated to charity.
It is getting ridiculous.
It has become a total obsession by some mccann supporters to attack Amaral at every turn.
You are a fair minded person, Stephen.
Reverse the situation.
fund (a) ... publishes accounts and is audited. It is criticised and scrutinised (forensically?)
fund (b) ... neither publishes or audits. It is not scrutinised forensically, it is not scrutinised at all neither is it criticised.
Now if fund (b) were Madeleine's and fund (a) were Amaral's ~ how fair would you consider it to malign fund (a) while being relaxed about fund (b)?
The mccanns accounts are from open and give base details.
Amaral's fund is there solely for legal expenses, and excess from which I believe will be donated to charity.
It is rather curious that the very same people who denigrate the McCanns at every turn grumble against just criticism of the person who has (principally) persecuted them for having the temerity to stand up against injustice, defend their reputation against calumny and (above all) try to find their daughter ....
I'm afraid typing cliches won't help you ferryman.
Most people have seen through that act along time ago.
The injustice was against Madeleine, and many hold the mccanns responsible for that.
and many don't
Many, in the land of never. 8(0(*
try to remember your opinion is not fact...the McCanns have a lot of support...imo
The remit of the auditors is only to confirm that the accounts meet the legal requirements
You may need to brush at a bit on your company law. 8(0(*
http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2006/46/part/16/chapter/3/crossheading/duties-and-rights-of-auditors
Nope, Peggy was right.
You may need to brush at a bit on your company law. 8(0(*I posted an abbreviation of that, Jean.
http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2006/46/part/16/chapter/3/crossheading/duties-and-rights-of-auditors
I posted an abbreviation of that, Jean.
Can you tell me, are the auditors responsible for guaranteeing that all expenditure has been solely to further the stated "objects"?
Thanks - yes I just saw that.
Not guarantee - that would require forensic analysis. However, the auditors can call on any records, and if they have doubts as to the integrity of the accounting records they can qualify the accounts.
I posted an abbreviation of that, Jean.
Can you tell me, are the auditors responsible for guaranteeing that all expenditure has been solely to further the stated "objects"?
I'm afraid typing cliches won't help you ferryman.
Most people have seen through that act along time ago.
The injustice was against Madeleine, and many hold the mccanns responsible for that.
I think you may need to explain that comment.Especially as I don't know the first thing about auditing.
There are a number of threads which address the No Stone Unturned company, and associated accounting.
This thread is dedicated to Amarals appeal. And the funding of that is pertinent to the subject of this thread.
I am certainly not suggesting that debate about the McCanns fund, or financial arrangements, should be supressed.
I am intrigued that certain posters seem to object so strongly to a suggestion that the Amaral defence fund should be subject to any scrutiny. What I would like to see is a bank statement, covering the period where the GoFundMe fundraising was in operation.
What is the problem with providing this information?
There are a number of threads which address the No Stone Unturned company, and associated accounting.Good idea for PJGA and also why don't MF publish their bank records too? So the many donators will be able to see exactly how much was paid to M3 and to that other company (information which is rather difficult to find in uninformative CH accounts)
This thread is dedicated to Amarals appeal. And the funding of that is pertinent to the subject of this thread.
I am certainly not suggesting that debate about the McCanns fund, or financial arrangements, should be supressed.
I am intrigued that certain posters seem to object so strongly to a suggestion that the Amaral defence fund should be subject to any scrutiny. What I would like to see is a bank statement, covering the period where the GoFundMe fundraising was in operation.
What is the problem with providing this information?
As a fund, Amaral's never promised to be transparent and was for one purpose only.
Fair enough. In that case there will always be a big question mark over the "defence fund". I am beginning to smell a big rat. ?{)(**
I reckon those who can smell the jolly old Siberian hamster and have all this compelling evidence (ha ha) that something untoward is going on should stop whingeing about it on here and behave like the upholders of justice they say they are and report it to the appropriate authorities complete with dossier of evidence. ?{)(**
Well it would be a little more constructive wouldn't it Billy?
Given the money in question was in the form of gifts, I do not think there is anything illegal going on. So nowt reportable. Just an interesting observation of double standards. I shall say no more about it. ?{)(**
Fair enough. In that case there will always be a big question mark over the "defence fund". I am beginning to smell a big rat. ?{)(**You speak of rats but have so far not come up with any Jean, and anyway you certainly can't claim that Sr Amaral went on a trip to London to meddle in the Bournemouth election (and as it turned out there was no need anyway). PJGA is squeaky clean, there are no rats for you to find.
As in each party is doing the minimum it is required to by law?, apart from the audit by "The Fund" which is no great shakes. That seems perfectly reasonable to me.
Don't say you are doing something else though.
It is getting ridiculous.
It has become a total obsession by some mccann supporters to attack Amaral at every turn.
Oh the irony.
I don't think either fund is a matter of any great interest, Alice. I would tend to agree
Of interest is the pejorative treatment meted out to one but no questions asked about the other ~ and the complete failure to recognise that sauce for the goose is sauce for the gander.If you set yourselves up like two bunches of kids in the playground pretending they are at Wembley what do you expect?
If there is a fund set up to pay for Mr Amaral's lawyers, no-one need lose any sleep over it except for those who were infighting over it. Just found some of the controversy while browsing something entirely different. LOL Misty should set up in business with a crystal ball ... she predicted as much and the posts are probably still on this thread.Oooh do tell ?{)(**
I don't think either fund is a matter of any great interest, Alice. I would tend to agree
Of interest is the pejorative treatment meted out to one but no questions asked about the other ~ and the complete failure to recognise that sauce for the goose is sauce for the gander.If you set yourselves up like two bunches of kids in the playground pretending they are at Wembley what do you expect?
If there is a fund set up to pay for Mr Amaral's lawyers, no-one need lose any sleep over it except for those who were infighting over it. Just found some of the controversy while browsing something entirely different. LOL Misty should set up in business with a crystal ball ... she predicted as much and the posts are probably still on this thread.Oooh do tell ?{)(**
I don't think either fund is a matter of any great interest, Alice. I would tend to agree
Sometimes great minds think alike :)
Of interest is the pejorative treatment meted out to one but no questions asked about the other ~ and the complete failure to recognise that sauce for the goose is sauce for the gander.If you set yourselves up like two bunches of kids in the playground pretending they are at Wembley what do you expect?
Would it be considered childish of me to suggest that one gang started it?
If there is a fund set up to pay for Mr Amaral's lawyers, no-one need lose any sleep over it except for those who were infighting over it. Just found some of the controversy while browsing something entirely different. LOL Misty should set up in business with a crystal ball ... she predicted as much and the posts are probably still on this thread.Oooh do tell ?{)(**My lips are sealed ... £4%4£ ... but it seems to have been a good going spat for all that
Former UK Ambassador Craig Murray confirms that Met Police did donate to the Gonçalo Amaral appeal fund.
Another person smeared for speaking out against the McCanns.
these charges were in 2003....
Former UK Ambassador Craig Murray confirms that Met Police did donate to the Gonçalo Amaral appeal fund.
Yes, but brought to light again now, by you, just after Murray wrote his blog.
Is that relevant to anything?
I have to say your researchers have been very busy.
it took me 1 min on google from a wiki site...when poeple have so much of a poor history it can be found very quickly
these charges were in 2003....
It doesn't mean dave that members of SY didn't donate to Amaral's fund.
8**8:/:
So how does that make you feel , that members of SY think the abduction is a total crock of BS.
And it doesn't mean that they did
Why are so many people offended by what is being done to Amaral? Isn't this what Free Speech is all about?
Maybe, but 999 out of 1000 wouldn't even bother.. But I'm interested in the truth and want to see how reliable any evidence is
. But I'm interested in the truth and want to see how reliable any evidence is
So drunk at work and offering visas for sex
Should I be a little careful on believing what he says
I would say yes
As I said Eleanor, If the mccanns and co., have done what I think they have, they will regret it.
As I said Eleanor, If the mccanns and co., have done what I think they have, they will regret it.
Why are so many people offended by what is being done to Amaral? Isn't this what Free Speech is all about?
i think you are misguided about what the McCanns do ...you think posters on here are working for them for a start
It's too late dave.
The secret is out.
Members of SY and other police donated to Amaral's fund.
....and dave, I already knew that. 8((()*/
Can you prove they aren't ? Do you know them all personally?
So you're an advocate of free speech now are you Eleanor ?
not really important...we all know some police are not that bright don't we
Are you talking about the heads of Operation Grange dave ?
That's naughty
There is no one on this forum who knows or is working for the mccanns...unless you can provide proof...which you cannot...then that is the position
i have been reading GA will be on portugese tv with 4 of the former pjs with him?? 8(0(*
i have been reading GA will be on portugese tv with 4 of the former pjs with him?? 8(0(*
Get 'em Gonçalo @abuseofpower 11m11 minutes ago
Amaral & 4 PJ officers who worked on #mccann case being interviewed on Portuguese TV at 11.30 tonight & he is going to "tell everything."
You're getting paranoid.as I said no proof..not even any evidence...we already know you have completely misinterpreted something else that was said at levenson..we have just had a quote from a british ambassador...and look at what a closer look at that has produced
You can be rest assured I have the PM, and a safe copy.
Oh God. Not in his pyjamas. I don't think I can handle that.
Well, miles better than gerry mccann in his jammies. @)(++(*
Well, miles better than gerry mccann in his jammies. @)(++(*
Excellent timing.
as I said no proof..not even any evidence...we already know you have completely misinterpreted something else that was said at levenson..we have just had a quote from a british ambassador...and look at what a closer look at that has produced
Shouldn't that be jemmies ?
no doubt they will tell us dogs dont lie and the dogs have never been wrong in 200 cases
Dream on.
Get 'em Gonçalo @abuseofpower 11m11 minutes ago
Amaral & 4 PJ officers who worked on #mccann case being interviewed on Portuguese TV at 11.30 tonight & he is going to "tell everything."
lets see what rubbish...and it will be rubbish...they come out with
It is rumoured it will be on CMTV
lets see what rubbish...and it will be rubbish...they come out with
It is rumoured it will be on CMTV
and others. 8((()*/
You mean, like the 'abduction' ?@)(++(*
5 police officers cant be wrong davel
5 police officers cant be wrong davelif they are portuguese and colleagues of amaral not only can they be wrong...they are wrong...as anyone will see when they produce their "evidence"
8)-))) its been a bad week for the mcanns and supporters hasent it
or in speedos 8)><( @)(++(*
get rid of the s 8(0(*speedo are very disturbing lol especally on middle aged men @)(++(*
I think it would be better to see what evidence...we know there is none...they produce to support their case
Would it be mathematically correct to refer to describe them as a handful of PJ Davel?
I'm sure you won't believe it, whatever it is .
speedo are very disturbing lol especally on middle aged men @)(++(*
Would it be mathematically correct to describe them as a handful of PJ Davel?
I think kates description is more accurate
26 Apr 2016
Statement
Projecto Justiça Gonçalo Amaral (PJGA) was set up by a group of his friends on 1 November, 2009, in response to the decision by Gerry & Kate McCann to take legal action against Gonçalo Amaral and others.
The McCanns sought not only to suspend sales of the book “Maddie: A Verdade da Mentira”, but to demand the sum of €1,2 million from Dr. Amaral.
A second injunction succeeded in freezing Dr. Amaral's assets and income, denying him the opportunity to defend himself in court.
On 20 November 2009, a defence fund was launched. Its purpose was to help enable Dr. Amaral to fight the legal action that was brought against him by the McCanns.
The fund has remained at all times independent of Dr Amaral. It is beyond reach of any compensation claim. Any funds remaining after all legal expenses are met are to be donated to a Portuguese children's charity.
In April 2015, as the legal action dragged on and costs were becoming difficult to handle, an approach was made to the friends who created PJGA, suggesting that a GoFundMe page be launched to generate additional funds.
PJGA cooperated with Leanne Baulch, who fronted this part of the appeal, to bring this to being on 29 April 2015.
Let us be clear: all donations made to the GoFundMe page, minus the commission deducted automatically by GoFundMe, were paid directly into the one bank account that has been held by friends of Dr Amaral since PJGA was created.
Leanne, having successfully promoted the GoFundMe page, handed over its control to the group of friends who coordinate PJGA, for personal reasons that are unrelated to the legal action. We are hugely grateful for her initiative.
On 21 October 2015, when it was considered that sufficient funds had been raised, it was decided the GoFundMe page would be closed on 28 October 2015.
The fund has been able to support Dr Amaral in his successful appeal against the McCanns' actions and at this moment contains adequate funds for a sound legal defence should the case be brought to Supreme Court. PJGA will continue to support Dr Amaral's legal costs should this happen. The PJGA legal defence fund remains open.
For the purpose of clarity, the suggestions of impropriety by anyone connected with the defence fund are false.
The group of friends and Mr Amaral himself remain eternally grateful for your support in allowing a man to defend himself in court and for justice to prevail.
We will endeavour to keep you informed as and when we receive further information regarding the re-appeal.
http://pjga.blogspot.co.uk/
And that no doubt really rankles with you - that they provided the where withal for Amaral to defend his case.
And that no doubt really rankles with you - that they provided the where withal for Amaral to defend his case.
#doesn't rankle me at all... I would be shocked of these people actually had something genuine to say rather than the lies they believe,,,,it reinforces the weakness of the arguments used by those who attack the mccanns
The weakness is the abduction thesis.
Gone nowhere, for very obvious reasons.
The mccann supporters have yet to get over, let alone comprehend the importance and implications of last week's judgement.
The weakness is the abduction thesis.
Gone nowhere, for very obvious reasons.
the fund was supported by people who had been misled ...who had been fed and believed lies.....that is an absolute fact proved by the comments on the site...
there is no evidence the abduction is a myth,,,just your opinion again
some of us are quite intelligent and understand exactly what is hapenning
The intelligent ones among us can see the mccanns have lost big time, and the abduction thesis is dead in the water.
some of us are quite intelligent and understand exactly what is hapenning
The intelligent ones among us can see the mccanns have lost big time, and the abduction thesis is dead in the water.
How do you reach that conclusion Stephen? The trial was concerned solely with amarals right to freedom of speech.
Some of you don't seem to have grasped what's happened, Amaral won his appeal, all the points raised by the first judge were refuted and the McCann's legal action against Amaral was deemed unfounded (without merit).so who exactly hasn't understood that
amarals appeal for funds was supported by lies... i think that is quite important
Watch the Saturday night program.
if you want to contradict what I am saying with evidence please do....my comments support my statements
Together with the suggestion (I believe found by Carana, although certainly not suggested by her) that (apparently) while a police officer can't breach judicial secrecy, a civilian (as Amaral became after exiting service with the police) can.
Was it something like that?
if what amaral says is true then I would be calling for the arrest of the Mccanns...the fact is...it isn't..it is lies...but poeple have believed him and use these supposed facts...which are lies...to accuse the mccanns..
if my truly accurate posts are removed then the truth is being censored
There are two issues, FM.
One is judicial secrecy, i.e. not divulging the contents of the investigation until they were formally made public (which he most certainly breached in the publishing process).
The other is the duty of confidentiality or "reserve". No serving PJ officer is allowed to comment on cases without official authorization (and even then it's normally the national PJ director). The issue is whether that rule still applies in retirement.
The current appeal ruling has said that it doesn't apply.
The a quo judge thought differently.
Under the Disciplinary Regulation of the Judicial Police, the duty of confidentiality is one of the general duties of the members of the Judicial Police [cf. art 5-e of the Regulation approved by Decree-Law No. 196/94, of July 21]. ( 28 )
Alongside this general duty of confidentiality, the Organic Law of the Judicial Police requires from the civil servants working in the Judicial Police a duty of reserve, prescribing that
(...) they cannot make public disclosures related to lawsuits or matter of reserved nature other than what is provided for in this law on public information and preventive actions among the population and also the provisions of the criminal procedure law [art 12-2]. ( 29 )
Even so the statements, when admissible,
(…) are subjects to prior authorisation provided by the national director or the national deputy directors, at risk of disciplinary proceedings, maintaining the eventual criminal liability [art 12-3]. ( 30 ) The duty of reserve is a functional requirement common to magistrates and organs of criminal police. As an example, in the case of the magistrates of the Public Ministry, the ordinary law postulates that this duty will remain after retirement, establishing the article 148-7 of the Statute that retired judges must respect the reserve required by their condition.
It is a duty that is essential to the preservation of public confidence in the institutions of the administration of justice. The duty of reserve protects the purposes of the criminal action, but also the physical and moral integrity, the freedom and the dignity of those concerned by that action.
Page 43
The criminal investigation officers, retired for various reasons of disciplinary penalty application, retain special rights, being holders of an identification card for recognition of their quality and the rights they enjoy [paragraphs 1 and and 2 of article 149 of the Organic Law of the Judicial Police and Ordinance No. 96/2002 of 31 January].
The statute of the retirement [approved by Decree-Law 498/72 of 9 December] establishes, from its original wording in the respective artº 74, paragraph 1, that
the retired, apart from his right to a retirement pension, remains bound to the civil service, keeping the titles and the category of the position he held and the rights and duties that do not depend on being in activity.
According to the notice of the Attorney General Department's advisory Council on February 16, 2006 (Esteves Remedio, in www.ministeriopublico.pt )
the legal relationship of retirement is, compared to the legal relationship of public employment, a relationship less intense where there is a blurring of the ties between the retired and the Administration, translated in the reduction of rights and duties. There is even so a "bond to the civil service", which materialises in conserving the titles and the position of the function exercised and the rights and duties that are not dependent on activity status "(emphasis added). The same note concluded that "the retired remains subject to duties of private conduct translated in particular in the abstention of practice of facts integrators of crimes that have a relevant connection with the functions previously carried out and thus affect actually the functioning of the service or in a serious way the dignity and the prestige of the function or of the Administration (idem).
Bearing in mind that legal mosaic, how to solve the conflict in this case between the rights of the claimants Gerald and Kate McCann to their good name and reputation and the defendant Goncalo Amaral's right to his opinion as resorting to freedom of expression he's entitled to ?
It appears that the conflict should be solved with the fact data that are present from the outset and that reveal the special condition of the defendant in front of the criminal investigation, condition that he capitalises in the book, the interview and the documentary.
http://gerrymccannsblogs.co.uk/v01.htm
There are two issues, FM.
One is judicial secrecy, i.e. not divulging the contents of the investigation until they were formally made public (which he most certainly breached in the publishing process).
The other is the duty of confidentiality or "reserve". No serving PJ officer is allowed to comment on cases without official authorization (and even then it's normally the national PJ director). The issue is whether that rule still applies in retirement.
The current appeal ruling has said that it doesn't apply.
The a quo judge thought differently.
Under the Disciplinary Regulation of the Judicial Police, the duty of confidentiality is one of the general duties of the members of the Judicial Police [cf. art 5-e of the Regulation approved by Decree-Law No. 196/94, of July 21]. ( 28 )
Alongside this general duty of confidentiality, the Organic Law of the Judicial Police requires from the civil servants working in the Judicial Police a duty of reserve, prescribing that
(...) they cannot make public disclosures related to lawsuits or matter of reserved nature other than what is provided for in this law on public information and preventive actions among the population and also the provisions of the criminal procedure law [art 12-2]. ( 29 )
Even so the statements, when admissible,
(…) are subjects to prior authorisation provided by the national director or the national deputy directors, at risk of disciplinary proceedings, maintaining the eventual criminal liability [art 12-3]. ( 30 ) The duty of reserve is a functional requirement common to magistrates and organs of criminal police. As an example, in the case of the magistrates of the Public Ministry, the ordinary law postulates that this duty will remain after retirement, establishing the article 148-7 of the Statute that retired judges must respect the reserve required by their condition.
It is a duty that is essential to the preservation of public confidence in the institutions of the administration of justice. The duty of reserve protects the purposes of the criminal action, but also the physical and moral integrity, the freedom and the dignity of those concerned by that action.
Page 43
The criminal investigation officers, retired for various reasons of disciplinary penalty application, retain special rights, being holders of an identification card for recognition of their quality and the rights they enjoy [paragraphs 1 and and 2 of article 149 of the Organic Law of the Judicial Police and Ordinance No. 96/2002 of 31 January].
The statute of the retirement [approved by Decree-Law 498/72 of 9 December] establishes, from its original wording in the respective artº 74, paragraph 1, that
the retired, apart from his right to a retirement pension, remains bound to the civil service, keeping the titles and the category of the position he held and the rights and duties that do not depend on being in activity.
According to the notice of the Attorney General Department's advisory Council on February 16, 2006 (Esteves Remedio, in www.ministeriopublico.pt )
the legal relationship of retirement is, compared to the legal relationship of public employment, a relationship less intense where there is a blurring of the ties between the retired and the Administration, translated in the reduction of rights and duties. There is even so a "bond to the civil service", which materialises in conserving the titles and the position of the function exercised and the rights and duties that are not dependent on activity status "(emphasis added). The same note concluded that "the retired remains subject to duties of private conduct translated in particular in the abstention of practice of facts integrators of crimes that have a relevant connection with the functions previously carried out and thus affect actually the functioning of the service or in a serious way the dignity and the prestige of the function or of the Administration (idem).
Bearing in mind that legal mosaic, how to solve the conflict in this case between the rights of the claimants Gerald and Kate McCann to their good name and reputation and the defendant Goncalo Amaral's right to his opinion as resorting to freedom of expression he's entitled to ?
It appears that the conflict should be solved with the fact data that are present from the outset and that reveal the special condition of the defendant in front of the criminal investigation, condition that he capitalises in the book, the interview and the documentary.
http://gerrymccannsblogs.co.uk/v01.htm
Overturned.
Does the appeal ruling mention the breach of judicial secrecy issue? I can't find it.
If the material was already out there Carana in the media and on the internet, there was no breach.
Amazing feat of technology then. Editing, proof-reading, photoshopping official photos as line drawings, layout, printing and distribution in 3 days...
The files weren't released on 21 July, that's just when the AG announced the archival. The files weren't released to journalists until 4 August.
You are still not getting it.
I wasn't referring to the 'files', I was referring to the information already out in the public arena prior to the book being released.
The information in the public domain, didn't accuse the McCann's, there was no evidence at all, apart from the 100% DNA headline that came from Portugal, where did that come from I wonder.
You are still not getting it.
I wasn't referring to the 'files', I was referring to the information already out in the public arena prior to the book being released.
Does the appeal ruling mention the breach of judicial secrecy issue? I can't find it.
Has it ever occurred to you, that people looking at the events and what the mccanns did, for example in setting up a fund so quickly, not bothering to search, etc., etc., raised more than just suspicions of what really happened in Portugal ?
I am very aware that there are people who prefer to believe lies and myths circulating on the internet rather than reading the Police files Stephen.
Such is the 'abduction' claim.
Totally unproven and without a shred of evidence to support it.
As to leaks on the internet, the mccanns, Mitchell and others have been doing that as well.
There doesn't have to be proof of an abduction, just enough time for it to have taken place.
I'll post it again then;
Nonetheless, it is understood, in the decision under appeal, that because the 1st appellant, Gonçalo Amaral, was, until October 2, 2007, the coordinator of the criminal investigation into the disappearance of Madeleine McCann, he was, after his retirement on the 1st of July, 2008, subject to the duties of secrecy and reserve that are imposed to the employees that serve the Polícia Judiciária.
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.......
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/
Thanks, I'd seen that. My understanding is that that concerns his apparent right to comment on a case that he was involved with once retired.
It doesn't seem to mention the issue of breaching judicial secrecy: the files hadn't been made public at the time of the publishing process and he signed his book contract back in March. Even seasoned authors would have an editor, let alone a first-time one. Who photoshopped the photos from the files? Who did the layout?
If that's considered just a minor illicit act, then ok. But it seems to have been glossed over...
It seems some people, who used their real names on the GoFundMe page when making a donation, have been doorstepped by journalists.
It seems some people, who used their real names on the GoFundMe page when making a donation, have been doorstepped by journalists.
The information in the public domain, didn't accuse the McCann's, there was no evidence at all, apart from the 100% DNA headline that came from Portugal, where did that come from I wonder.
It does mention secrecy. What other kind of secrecy apart from the judicial kind do you think they were referring to?
Not from the PJ I imagine;
After exhausting all leads suggesting Madeleine was abducted, police are now working on the theory she suffered an accident or was killed inside the flat.
They have confirmed that the parents are not suspects. Two specialist British sniffer dogs, one with the ability to find small traces of blood and the other a "victim" dog who can detect human remains, were brought in a fortnight ago.
Alípio Ribeiro, national director of the PJ, said that detectives were "far from throwing light on the case".
He added: "Despite the fact that new elements have appeared in the investigation we still do not know where they will lead us."
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/1560443/Madeleine-sniffer-dogs-detect-scent-of-body.html
quote - They have confirmed the parents are not suspects unquote Until Amaral misunderstands the DNA and devises his theory based on it.
It's common for police to say people aren't suspects when they are. It's called lulling them into a false sense of security. I would imagine that's even more important when dealing with people from another country who can clear off whenever they wish.
Did the calling in of the dogs create suspicion or did suspicion lead to the dogs being used? I rather think the second option, which suggests they confirmed investigator's suspicions, they didn't create them.
It's common for police to say people aren't suspects when they are.... (snip)Yes here is an example from a case in South London before it was solved
Yes here is an example from a case in South London before it was solved
"Scotland Yard ... confirmed X was being quizzed as a witness not a suspect"
And from a Cambs case before it was solved.
"The officer explained to Y that he was not a suspect"
In both those cases, the "not a suspect" person has since won unlimited free all-season holiday accommodation.
We have a thread about private investigators in PT somewhere.
I have never found anything in the legal code that stipulates that they are illegal. There are loads of PT-based ones advertising as any 2-second google search will show.
What would be illegal is using illegal means to obtain information / violating privacy and / or obstructing the course of justice.