UK Justice Forum 🇬🇧
Disappeared and Abducted Children and Young Adults => Madeleine McCann (3) disappeared from her parent's holiday apartment at Ocean Club, Praia da Luz, Portugal on 3 May 2007. No trace of her has ever been found. => Topic started by: John on June 06, 2015, 05:05:42 PM
-
One point which I believe has never been discussed is the value of the damages claim and the alternatives.
My own view is that €500,000 plus interest should not have gone to the plaintiffs in damages. Although it is nigh impossible to put a price on what the McCanns claimed to have suffered due to Amarals book, such an award is unheard of in Portugal.
If Amaral broke the Law in publishing the material he did, would it not have been better sense for the State to confiscate his earnings as a fine leaving the plaintiffs with a nominal sum plus costs?
76
-
One point which I believe has never been discussed is the value of the damages claim and the alternatives.
My own view is that €500,000 plus interest should not have gone to the plaintiffs in damages. Although it is nigh impossible to put a price on what the McCanns claimed to have suffered due to Amarals book, such an award is unheard of in Portugal.
If Amaral broke the Law in publishing the material he did, would it not have been better sense for the State to confiscate his earnings as a fine leaving the plaintiffs with a nominal sum plus costs?
No, personally I think the state should prosecute Amaral for breaking judicial secrecy laws, in a separate action, and then bang him up.
-
One point which I believe has never been discussed is the value of the damages claim and the alternatives.
My own view is that €500,000 plus interest should not have gone to the plaintiffs in damages. Although it is nigh impossible to put a price on what the McCanns claimed to have suffered due to Amarals book, such an award is unheard of in Portugal.
If Amaral broke the Law in publishing the material he did, would it not have been better sense for the State to confiscate his earnings as a fine leaving the plaintiffs with a nominal sum plus costs?
I doubt there would be any justification in law for Mr Amaral to be fined by the State.
The Drs McCann were damaged by his offence and took action for redress. If the damages awarded as a result of their successful action are unheard of in Portugal ... all that means is that a precedent has been set.
-
One point which I believe has never been discussed is the value of the damages claim and the alternatives.
My own view is that €500,000 plus interest should not have gone to the plaintiffs in damages. Although it is nigh impossible to put a price on what the McCanns claimed to have suffered due to Amarals book, such an award is unheard of in Portugal.
If Amaral broke the Law in publishing the material he did, would it not have been better sense for the State to confiscate his earnings as a fine leaving the plaintiffs with a nominal sum plus costs?
How would that work in a civil case with the general principles of not benefiting from illicit gains and reparation?
The award - as it stands - is substantial, certainly by Portuguese standards, apparently.
On the other hand, how many former police officers usually gain €380k+ in two years? And these are the amounts that could be PROVEN (based ONLY on direct income from the book and the docudrama).
I suppose that it MIGHT be possible that the only media outlet that he attempted to charge €80k + VAT was the one connected to Sky... but... ohh, what did I just see fly by the window?
-
One point which I believe has never been discussed is the value of the damages claim and the alternatives.
My own view is that €500,000 plus interest should not have gone to the plaintiffs in damages. Although it is nigh impossible to put a price on what the McCanns claimed to have suffered due to Amarals book, such an award is unheard of in Portugal.
If Amaral broke the Law in publishing the material he did, would it not have been better sense for the State to confiscate his earnings as a fine leaving the plaintiffs with a nominal sum plus costs?
If he broke the Judicial Secrecy Laws, action should have been taken by the authorities as soon after the book was published as possible.
The State had numerous opportunities to prevent Amaral profiting, but chose to do nothing. It would be like allowing a drug dealer to operate while the authorities turned a blind eye, then arresting him once he had a million in the bank - which makes the state complicit in the crime & profit.
-
No, personally I think the state should prosecute Amaral for breaking judicial secrecy laws, in a separate action, and then bang him up.
At the time, his "lateral promotion" (with thanks to Alice for making me chuckle over that expression) and whatever ensued may have seemed to be a discreet way of dealing with the issue at the time.
If ever that was an invitation to actively "explore other career avenues", the authorities may have felt that they'd dealt with it...
Edited for typos and other gremlins...
-
seems quite reasonable to me
-
The way I see it, if what the Judge stated in her expansive judgement is true, then Amaral used privileged information which was illegal. Surely all gains attributed to it should therefore be forfeit?
-
The way I see it, if what the Judge stated in her expansive judgement is true, then Amaral used privileged information which was illegal. Surely all gains attributed to it should therefore be forfeit?
There would have been no court case without the McCanns bringing the action against Amaral. why should the McCanns pay all those legal costs in order for Portugal to profit for the damage they incurred?
-
There would have been no court case without the McCanns bringing the action against Amaral. why should the McCanns pay all those legal costs in order for Portugal to profit for the damage they incurred?
There would have been no court case ,but for the actions, or more precisely inactions, of the mccanns.
-
There would have been no court case ,but for the actions, or more precisely inactions, of the mccanns.
6&%5%
-
His recent spoutings give some indications as to what his appeal wil concern...
-
6&%5%
You know it's true. 8((()*/
Then it would mean admitting the truth.
Do you like the truth alfred ? *&*%£
-
You know it's true. 8((()*/
Then it would mean admitting the truth.
Do you like the truth alfred ? *&*%£
You are very selective in the 'truths' you care to espouse. A former cop with a criminal conviction broke the secrecy laws and broke the law regarding the McCanns' rights to innocence.
The McCanns have sought redress through the courts and have been awarded damages as a result.
If the State wishes to seek redress for damage done to the Secrecy Laws ... it is up to the representatives of the State to lay charges.
-
You know it's true. 8((()*/
Then it would mean admitting the truth.
Do you like the truth alfred ? *&*%£
Another thread successfully disrupted, well done Stephen 8@??)(
-
The way I see it, if what the Judge stated in her expansive judgement is true, then Amaral used privileged information which was illegal. Surely all gains attributed to it should therefore be forfeit?
The judge seems to have adopted the principle of "Drs McCann suffered distress as a result of Sr Amaral publishing privileged information which is contrary to Portuguese law. Sr Amaral profited by publishing that privileged information. Balance it up by awarding the profits to Drs McCann".
As a principle I can see nowt wrong with it. Under the circumstances, however, did the judge have the powers to do that* ?
It is strange that if Sr Amaral did breach the law with respect to his position as a public servant that no action has been brought for 8 years.
* as in did she actually have the power under Portuguese law, not what do a load of barrack room lawyers on here think. The judiciary exceeding it's authority causes appeals in England and Wales so as an occurrence it is not unheard of.
-
The judge seems to have adopted the principle of "Drs McCann suffered distress as a result of Sr Amaral publishing privileged information which is contrary to Portuguese law. Sr Amaral profited by publishing that privileged information. Balance it up by awarding the profits to Drs McCann".
As a principle I can see nowt wrong with it. Under the circumstances, however, did the judge have the powers to do that* ?
It is strange that if Sr Amaral did breach the law with respect to his position as a public servant that no action has been brought for 8 years.
* as in did she actually have the power under Portuguese law, not what do a load of barrack room lawyers on here think. The judiciary exceeding it's authority causes appeals in England and Wales so as an occurrence it is not unheard of.
On the underlined bit, I was wondering if they'd attempted to deal with it quietly via his "lateral promotion", possibly with a view towards giving him time to either settle back in or to seek other "career opportunities".
How much active service was he actually involved in once he was (back) in Faro? How much statutory notice would be required? How much could be dragged out prior to official notice being given (by either side)?
He was still mixed up in the Cipriano torture saga, after all, so I doubt that he'd have been given a free hand at playing Starsky and Hutch during that time.
Dealing with it quietly may just be the PT way of dealing with it at the time...
-
While I quite like the concept that no one should gain financially from a libel action, I feel that the state should not benefit, rather any money awarded should go to a registered charity of the 'winner's' choice.
-
While I quite like the concept that no one should gain financially from a libel action, I feel that the state should not benefit, rather any money awarded should go to a registered charity of the 'winner's' choice.
But that takes us back to the issue of reparation for damage...
-
While I quite like the concept that no one should gain financially from a libel action, I feel that the state should not benefit, rather any money awarded should go to a registered charity of the 'winner's' choice.
That's a novel idea certainly jassi but if the Portuguese State is anything like the UK then it would need all that potential dosh to pay for their drug misuse and paedophile offending rehabilitation schemes. Criminal prosecution systems are far too greedy to give money away to charities imo.
I still think awarding a couple nearly €600,000 for emotional upset, sleeplessness, mental anguish and everything else claimed was a bit ott and should not have been equated with Amaral's earnings.
-
The bottom line is the 'award' for want of a better description has has never seen the like in Portugal, and still subject to any appeal, or appeals.
Can any one find any case in Portuguese history even vaguely similar to this one ?
-
The bottom line is the 'award' for want of a better description has has never seen the like in Portugal, and still subject to any appeal, or appeals.
Can any one find any case in Portuguese history even vaguely similar to this one ?
I haven't actually looked but feel perfectly safe in voicing the opinion "No". I think the exemplary damages award may reflect that.
-
The bottom line is the 'award' for want of a better description has has never seen the like in Portugal, and still subject to any appeal, or appeals.
Can any one find any case in Portuguese history even vaguely similar to this one ?
How many cases (of civil libel!) in Portugal can anyone find?
-
On the underlined bit, I was wondering if they'd attempted to deal with it quietly via his "lateral promotion", possibly with a view towards giving him time to either settle back in or to seek other "career opportunities".
How much active service was he actually involved in once he was (back) in Faro? How much statutory notice would be required? How much could be dragged out prior to official notice being given (by either side)?
He was still mixed up in the Cipriano torture saga, after all, so I doubt that he'd have been given a free hand at playing Starsky and Hutch during that time.
Dealing with it quietly may just be the PT way of dealing with it at the time...
The actuality is the book was published after he left the service.
Husky and Starch? showing your age a bit there Carana; Huggy Bears all round ?{)(**
-
I haven't actually looked but feel perfectly safe in voicing the opinion "No". I think the exemplary damages award may reflect that.
Exemplary, NO.
Disgusting and unjustified, most definitely YES.
-
Exemplary, NO.
Disgusting and unjustified, most definitely YES.
It is the judgement of the Portuguese Court in reaction to the disgusting and unjustified behaviour of a former public servant.
Had he been whatever Joe Bloggs is called in Portugal he probably would not have been sued for damages because the actual damage done would have been negligible.
He chose to write a book as the senior investigating officer, which gave his narrative considerable weight ... and I think the damages award is commensurate with what the Judge considered actual damage done.
-
It is the judgement of the Portuguese Court in reaction to the disgusting and unjustified behaviour of a former public servant.
Had he been whatever Joe Bloggs is called in Portugal he probably would not have been sued for damages because the actual damage done would have been negligible.
He chose to write a book as the senior investigating officer, which gave his narrative considerable weight ... and I think the damages award is commensurate with what the Judge considered actual damage done.
One judge and one view, which merely reinforces your bias to the mccanns.
The one thing you can't escape from, is that they, and not some mythical abductor are the architects of their own failure
and that is nothing to do with Amaral.
-
The actuality is the book was published after he left the service.
Husky and Starch? showing your age a bit there Carana; Huggy Bears all round ?{)(**
Well, Huggy Alice Bear, at least it was an alternative to Life on Mars... ;)
-
If he broke the Judicial Secrecy Laws, action should have been taken by the authorities as soon after the book was published as possible.
The State had numerous opportunities to prevent Amaral profiting, but chose to do nothing. It would be like allowing a drug dealer to operate while the authorities turned a blind eye, then arresting him once he had a million in the bank - which makes the state complicit in the crime & profit.
I like this.
Not saying it happened this way.
Just that I like this.
-
The actuality is the book was published after he left the service.
Husky and Starch? showing your age a bit there Carana; Huggy Bears all round ?{)(**
I do know that books are no longer painstakingly handwritten on papyrus, but how exactly can a book be edited (including file photos photoshopped to look like artists' drawings), published and ready for distribution in three days without sharing the contents with anyone, oh wise one?
-
The attached link - not very well written but may be helpful in elucidating the impenetrable Portuguese defamation laws.
http://www.freemedia.at/newssview/article/portuguese-defamation-laws-still-reflect-authoritarian-concept-of-power-expert-says.html
-
10. The Civil Code does not establish any defences to defamation claims and there are no caps on damages.
No defences?
Surely that can''t be right?
But neither a cap on damage.
-
I do know that books are no longer painstakingly handwritten on papyrus, but how exactly can a book be edited (including file photos photoshopped to look like artists' drawings), published and ready for distribution in three days without sharing the contents with anyone, oh wise one?
I know that, you know that, the judge knows that but does it matter?
If the rule is strictly "thou shalt not publish whilst thou holdeth office" rather than "thou shalt not begin to write a book whilst thou holdeth office".............?
-
It is the judgement of the Portuguese Court in reaction to the disgusting and unjustified behaviour of a former public servant.
Had he been whatever Joe Bloggs is called in Portugal he probably would not have been sued for damages because the actual damage done would have been negligible.
He chose to write a book as the senior investigating officer, which gave his narrative considerable weight ... and I think the damages award is commensurate with what the Judge considered actual damage done.
And there's me thinking courts "did" law not moral judgements.
-
And there's me thinking courts "did" law not moral judgements.
Ultimately, most law is based on morals. And courts can "do" law but express disapproval. Contemptuous Damages, for example.
-
Ultimately, most law is based on morals. And courts can "do" law but express disapproval. Contemptuous Damages, for example.
Surely there must be defences to civil defamation in Portugal, mustn't there?
-
In civil cases, there should be clear rules in terms of possible defences. In Portugal, for example, there is a strand of opinion among the courts holding that in the case of a defamatory allegation [non-pecuniary] damages are owed – even if the allegation is true.
Only an opinion ...
-
Ultimately, most law is based on morals. And courts can "do" law but express disapproval. Contemptuous Damages, for example.
Or a system of norms/standards that is found acceptable?
There are two schools of thought on this: "legal and moral are inseparable" vs "legal and moral aren't inseparable"
Best leave this one lie. We know what we meant ?{)(**
-
I know that, you know that, the judge knows that but does it matter?
If the rule is strictly "thou shalt not publish whilst thou holdeth office" rather than "thou shalt not begin to write a book whilst thou holdeth office".............?
How about "thou shalt not shareth warblings based on unreleased files with Benji the Binman whilst thou holdeth office"?
-
The attached link - not very well written but may be helpful in elucidating the impenetrable Portuguese defamation laws.
http://www.freemedia.at/newssview/article/portuguese-defamation-laws-still-reflect-authoritarian-concept-of-power-expert-says.html
Thanks, JP.
It seems to me that criminal defamation is a hangover from the dictatorship era.
Still clear as mud, though, in terms of the concept in a civil case.
Particularly this point:
10. The Civil Code does not establish any defences to defamation claims and there are no caps on damages.
As far as I'm aware, "difamação" as a term isn't even mentioned in the civil code, is it?
In the penal code, the concept appears to be wrapped up in the elastic concept of "honour" (and potentially all sorts of illegal practices in terms of how information may have been obtained, malicious intent, etc), whereas the civil code appears to have a broader concept of the infringement of all sorts of personal rights.
In the Supreme Court ruling on the injunction, the rights claimed by the McCanns appear to have been dismissed - but the scope of that ruling was limited to the issue at hand.
But then the respective rights (albeit not exactly the same ones / or not worded in the same way ) are the subject of the main trial:
At the centre of this trial, there is a conflict between two existing rights, the right to good name and reputation of the claimants (through the presumption of innocence that they always were entitled to) and the right to freedom of expression of the defendant, in the concrete field of the right to opinion he is entitled to...
-
Does anyone know if the McCanns actually filed the criminal complaint claimed in this article :
'McCanns accuse Amaral of violating the judicial secrecy Correio da Manhã
Couple's lawyer moves for criminal action
P.M.C.
14 January 2010 - 15h54
Thanks to Joana Morais for translation
The McCann couple will file a criminal action against Gonçalo Amaral for allegedly violating judicial secrecy when he published facts concerning the investigation, in his book "Maddie – The Truth of the Lie".
According to Lusa Agency, the British couple's lawyer, Isabel Duarte, stated that the action will be filed after a certificate from the trial of the book's prohibition is extracted, which is expected to happen as soon as next week.
The accusation of violation of judicial secrecy is based on the date when the former inspector’s book was ready, which happened three days after the Republic's prosecutor wrote the process' archiving dispatch.
Isabel Duarte defends that "Gonçalo Amaral diffused the process to Guerra & Paz [the book's editor] when the process was still under judicial secrecy. He diffused facts and he was not authorised to do so".
The lawyer recalled that the video that was broadcast on TVI is evidence of that infraction, because it was an important piece within the investigation and stated that she is going to file a criminal complaint against the former inspector herself, over "false statements" to the court. According to Isabel Duarte, this accusation is based on statements by Gonçalo Amaral that he has "no real estate [nor any] participation in a firm", when in reality such is not true.
The former inspector is thus being accused over false statements, of violating the judicial secrecy, and of defamation by the McCann couple and by their lawyer.'
-
Thanks, JP.
It seems to me that criminal defamation is a hangover from the dictatorship era.
Still clear as mud, though, in terms of the concept in a civil case.
Particularly this point:
10. The Civil Code does not establish any defences to defamation claims and there are no caps on damages.
As far as I'm aware, "difamação" as a term isn't even mentioned in the civil code, is it?
In the penal code, the concept appears to be wrapped up in the elastic concept of "honour" (and potentially all sorts of illegal practices in terms of how information may have been obtained, malicious intent, etc), whereas the civil code appears to have a broader concept of the infringement of all sorts of personal rights.
In the Supreme Court ruling on the injunction, the rights claimed by the McCanns appear to have been dismissed - but the scope of that ruling was limited to the issue at hand.
But then the respective rights (albeit not exactly the same ones / or not worded in the same way ) are the subject of the main trial:
At the centre of this trial, there is a conflict between two existing rights, the right to good name and reputation of the claimants (through the presumption of innocence that they always were entitled to) and the right to freedom of expression of the defendant, in the concrete field of the right to opinion he is entitled to...
It seem that the presumption of innocence is an important part of this ruling and one that is not present in every defamation claim.
-
I know that, you know that, the judge knows that but does it matter?
If the rule is strictly "thou shalt not publish whilst thou holdeth office" rather than "thou shalt not begin to write a book whilst thou holdeth office".............?
The rule is "having been a policeman, even though retired, thou shalt not publish a book accusing people of committing crimes".
-
No, personally I think the state should prosecute Amaral for breaking judicial secrecy laws, in a separate action, and then bang him up.
Sorry to disappoint you but the McCanns with their lawyer Isabel Duarte filed a complaint for breach of judicial secrecy in 2010 and nothing came of it!
-
We are all well aware about the reason for the award. Nothing to do with Liabel. The lack of evidence of 'pain and suffering', and negative impact on the 'search' 'caused' by the book should have had the 'case' thrown out. And technically it was- on those grounds. They were awarded 'lottery money due to something which should have been dealt with by a criminal court- if a crime had been committed by Amaral.
So, if Sr Amaral is arrested, charged and convicted of his book writing criminality then the chances of him being fined €50000.00 is..well...not realistic now is it?
So there you have it...parents who facilitated their daughters fate ( whatever that was /is) get fame, money and those who disbelieve their version (one of many) accounts of what happened that night go freee... live happily ever after...
They used the laws to protect themselves which shows them to be cruel in the eyes of many.
The truth is out there waiting to be found!
-
We are all well aware about the reason for the award. Nothing to do with Liabel. The lack of evidence of 'pain and suffering', and negative impact on the 'search' 'caused' by the book should have had the 'case' thrown out. And technically it was- on those grounds. They were awarded 'lottery money due to something which should have been dealt with by a criminal court- if a crime had been committed by Amaral.
So, if Sr Amaral is arrested, charged and convicted of his book writing criminality then the chances of him being fined €50000.00 is..well...not realistic now is it?
So there you have it...parents who facilitated their daughters fate ( whatever that was /is) get fame, money and those who disbelieve their version (one of many) accounts of what happened that night go freee... live happily ever after...
They used the laws to protect themselves which shows them to be cruel in the eyes of many.
The truth is out there waiting to be found!
Excellent post. 8@??)( 8@??)( 8@??)(
-
Sorry to disappoint you but the McCanns with their lawyer Isabel Duarte filed a complaint for breach of judicial secrecy in 2010 and nothing came of it!
Maybe Portugal should think about getting rid of the laws re judicial secrecy or start applying them?
It seems to me that Judicial Secrecy laws have been abused by some members of the PJ against people who they have decided are guilty of a crime - and who they wish to turn public opinion against - before the case even gets to court - mainly through the media. At the same time their 'victim's are told that if they do the same they will be arrested for breaking the secrecy laws.
Surely that state of affairs urgently needs to be addressed?
-
I do believe that Team McCann were also feeding the 'press' via 'family friends' and did they not break the law by procuring private investigators? Oh dearie dearie me I saw POT CALLING A KETTLE BLACK!
-
The rule is "having been a policeman, even though retired, thou shalt not publish a book accusing people of committing crimes".
In that case it is immaterial whether he started to write the book in or out of office.
My view is if he broke the law he should be punished as that law demands. There are those who seem to think the punishment should go up on an exponential scale because he started to write the book whilst remaining in office.
-
In that case it is immaterial whether he started to write the book in or out of office.
My view is if he broke the law he should be punished as that law demands. There are those who seem to think the punishment should go up on an exponential scale because he started to write the book whilst remaining in office.
...and going by some posts on here the same 'some' would be standing at the tree, with the Garrott, gleefully awaiting the hanging!- with or without a trial!
But Kate n Gerry will spend the money wisely I am sure. BUT then, the others being sued did not have to pay anything- they must be 'innocent'- so no liable there then!
-
In that case it is immaterial whether he started to write the book in or out of office.
My view is if he broke the law he should be punished as that law demands. There are those who seem to think the punishment should go up on an exponential scale because he started to write the book whilst remaining in office.
As I'm not convinced that he actually turned up for work, I expect that he had time on his hands. Writing it isn't an issue, but sharing elements of the files is a breach.
On the other hand, from what I can gather of the ruling on that point, it doesn't seem to be so much the fact that he broke judicial secrecy that is a major issue, but rather the timing of the publication of it (and the associated promo tour) that deflected coverage away from the AG's somewhat different conclusion (based as it was on an analysis of the full dossier, not cherry-picked details from the first few months).
-
Maybe Portugal should think about getting rid of the laws re judicial secrecy or start applying them?
It seems to me that Judicial Secrecy laws have been abused by some members of the PJ against people who they have decided are guilty of a crime - and who they wish to turn public opinion against - before the case even gets to court - mainly through the media. At the same time their 'victim's are told that if they do the same they will be arrested for breaking the secrecy laws.
Surely that state of affairs urgently needs to be addressed?
There has been a change in the application of judicial secrecy apparently towards becoming more of an exception rather than the rule. Not sure if I can dig anything up on that, but JP might.
-
There has been a change in the application of judicial secrecy apparently towards becoming more of an exception rather than the rule. Not sure if I can dig anything up on that, but JP might.
And the laws broken by the McCanns? Private investigators, and Brian Kennedy talking to witnesses?
or is this just a one way assassination?
-
Getting back on track again, the judgement went to great lengths to explain why the award of €250,000 to each parent plus accumulated interest was made. Question is however, was such an amount excessive in the circumstances?
How can one possibly equate Amaral's earnings from his book and DVD etc with the sufferings of the plaintiffs?
-
There has been a change in the application of judicial secrecy apparently towards becoming more of an exception rather than the rule. Not sure if I can dig anything up on that, but JP might.
Way back, I remember seeing a revised model of the way information about a current investigation might be imparted into the wider domain and I recall being struck that it seemed to mirror the way information about UK investigations is released, with laws very similar to our own sub juducie laws, and a definite relaxation on the (official!) position of absolutely zero information being released.
-
In that case it is immaterial whether he started to write the book in or out of office.
My view is if he broke the law he should be punished as that law demands. There are those who seem to think the punishment should go up on an exponential scale because he started to write the book whilst remaining in office.
It is immaterial. And the reason why it is seen as not a very good idea for current or ex police officers writing books or making documentaries accusing suspects in their cases of committing crimes is, I hope, obvious.
The fact that the files would eventually be made public, and Amarals "rights" are not relevant.
I suspect that had he written a very similar book, and taken part in a very similar documentary, but had extended it to included the PP / AG statements in July 2008, he would have "gotten away with it" But would his story have sold so well "I thought the parents had dunnit, the police investigated and the PP decided they hadn't" is not terribly compelling.
The crux of the judgement is that he had taken away the McCanns right to innocence in the eyes of the law - as a police officer he really should have known better.
-
It is immaterial. And the reason why it is seen as not a very good idea for current or ex police officers writing books or making documentaries accusing suspects in their cases of committing crimes is, I hope, obvious.
The fact that the files would eventually be made public, and Amarals "rights" are not relevant.
I suspect that had he written a very similar book, and taken part in a very similar documentary, but had extended it to included the PP / AG statements in July 2008, he would have "gotten away with it" But would his story have sold so well "I thought the parents had dunnit, the police investigated and the PP decided they hadn't" is not terribly compelling.
The crux of the judgement is that he had taken away the McCanns right to innocence in the eyes of the law - as a police officer he really should have known better.
He probably did know, but it hadn't yet occurred to him that The State were no longer accepting the word of The PJ as absolute.
Personally, I think that any injured party should get the sum total of any profit made which caused distress.
-
Getting back on track again, the judgement went to great lengths to explain why the award of €250,000 to each parent plus accumulated interest was made. Question is however, was such an amount excessive in the circumstances?
How can one possibly equate Amaral's earnings from his book and DVD etc with the sufferings of the plaintiffs?
Well John Indeed!
I thought it was established that the book did not cause suffering to the extent the McCanns claimed, and coulldn't evidence! and also it was due to Sr Amaral position with regards to access to files-which is claimed on here as being'criminal'?
-
Well John Indeed!
I thought it was established that the book did not cause suffering to the extent the McCanns claimed, and coulldn't evidence! and also it was due to Sr Amaral position with regards to access to files-which is claimed on here as being'criminal'?
Yes, I should have said sufferings in part.
Surely if Amaral broke the secrecy laws this was a mantle for criminal prosecutors to pursue and not something a Judge in a civil trial should have concerned herself with?
-
Way back, I remember seeing a revised model of the way information about a current investigation might be imparted into the wider domain and I recall being struck that it seemed to mirror the way information about UK investigations is released, with laws very similar to our own sub juducie laws, and a definite relaxation on the (official!) position of absolutely zero information being released.
My impression is that Portugal is moving forward at an accelerated rate, but change takes time and resources.
The previous blanket judicial secrecy was an open invitation for a potentially corrupt relationship between the PJ and the media. As we know, there are scandals over such corruption in probably every country, but the absence of a police media relations service can only make it more endemic, IMO.
As a PT newspaper editor once said: "Judicial secrecy is like traffic regulations. Everyone knows they exist, but no one takes any notice."
Establishing a win-win functional service required rethinking the laws. If the laws have been revised, then that may pave the way, but establishing one will presumably require more resources - including a clear strategy (which itself would presumably involve change management).
-
Getting back on track again, the judgement went to great lengths to explain why the award of €250,000 to each parent plus accumulated interest was made. Question is however, was such an amount excessive in the circumstances?
How can one possibly equate Amaral's earnings from his book and DVD etc with the sufferings of the plaintiffs?
A subsidiary question to this as I have posted is; "Did the judge have the powers to do this" ?
The judgement seems to have been based on a premise outside the terms of the writ being tried.
Or putting it another way "Was she allowed to do this under the terms of the contract"?
-
A subsidiary question to this as I have posted is; "Did the judge have the powers to do this" ?
The judgement seems to have been based on a premise outside the terms of the writ being tried.
Or putting it another way "Was she allowed to do this under the terms of the contract"?
Are you suggesting the judge acted illegally?
-
It is immaterial. And the reason why it is seen as not a very good idea for current or ex police officers writing books or making documentaries accusing suspects in their cases of committing crimes is, I hope, obvious.
The fact that the files would eventually be made public, and Amarals "rights" are not relevant.
I suspect that had he written a very similar book, and taken part in a very similar documentary, but had extended it to included the PP / AG statements in July 2008, he would have "gotten away with it" But would his story have sold so well "I thought the parents had dunnit, the police investigated and the PP decided they hadn't" is not terribly compelling.
The crux of the judgement is that he had taken away the McCanns right to innocence in the eyes of the law - as a police officer he really should have known better.
JP, on this bit:
But would his story have sold so well "I thought the parents had dunnit, the police investigated and the PP decided they hadn't" is not terribly compelling.
I (and I don't think I'm alone) think that he could have written his book in precisely that way and it would still have been a best-seller at the time. He could have moaned to his heart's content about communication issues, the hassle of the media presence, the lack of whatever at the time... It would still have been an interesting perspective on the situation viewed from the inside.
In the wake of the Jersey fiasco, there was an interesting interview with Lenny Harper along those lines.... 'Yes, there were mistakes, but here was the situation that I was faced with...'.
I'm not sure that I could find it now, but I remember feeling quite sympathetic.
-
Yes, I should have said sufferings in part.
Surely if Amaral broke the secrecy laws this was a mantle for criminal prosecutors to pursue and not something a Judge in a civil trial should have concerned herself with?
The delay might have had something to do with the Official Banning and the Unbanning of Amaral's book. It if wasn't actually decided then this might have affected the right of anyone to condemn Amaral for breaking The Law.
-
Are you suggesting the judge acted illegally?
I am merely asking if the judge has acted within her powers.
Presumably you are aware that in this country magistrates and judges have been known to act outside their powers leading to appeals?
I don't know whether such actions are illegal or not. I suspect not otherwise there would be more than just an appeal.
-
A subsidiary question to this as I have posted is; "Did the judge have the powers to do this" ?
The judgement seems to have been based on a premise outside the terms of the writ being tried.
Or putting it another way "Was she allowed to do this under the terms of the contract"?
I agree with that Alice. It's like being arrested with a parking law and being found guilty of walking on the grass!
And to re ban that book is very strange indeed! especially as you can still wach the docu and other material from it! it is all over the world!
-
It is immaterial. And the reason why it is seen as not a very good idea for current or ex police officers writing books or making documentaries accusing suspects in their cases of committing crimes is, I hope, obvious.
The fact that the files would eventually be made public, and Amarals "rights" are not relevant.
I suspect that had he written a very similar book, and taken part in a very similar documentary, but had extended it to included the PP / AG statements in July 2008, he would have "gotten away with it" But would his story have sold so well "I thought the parents had dunnit, the police investigated and the PP decided they hadn't" is not terribly compelling.
The crux of the judgement is that he had taken away the McCanns right to innocence in the eyes of the law - as a police officer he really should have known better.
I have read the ECHR Article 6 (2) and it seems to be about the right of suspects to the presumption of innocence.. Were the McCanns suspects at the time?
-
I have read the ECHR Article 6 (2) and it seems to be about the right of suspects to the presumption of innocence.. Were the McCanns suspects at the time?
Not by the time of the publication of the book, let alone the more visually compelling docu drama, which is precisely one of the issues.
-
I am merely asking if the judge has acted within her powers.
Presumably you are aware that in this country magistrates and judges have been known to act outside their powers leading to appeals?
I don't know whether such actions are illegal or not. I suspect not otherwise there would be more than just an appeal.
I see. You are simply questioning the judge's ability to do her job correctly, fair enough.
-
Not by the time of the publication of the book, let alone the more visually compelling docu drama, which is precisely one of the issues.
The judge extended the presumption of innocence to former suspects also, as in those who had been acquitted. I think she based this on a UK case.
-
The judge extended the presumption of innocence to former suspects also, as in those who had been acquitted. I think she based this on a UK case.
Try turning the issue on its head: at what point did the parents ever LOSE the right to the presumption of innocence?
-
Have we seen the full judgement?...some of it does not really make sense...for instance it does say it is proved that the dogs reacted to a cadaver when we know this isn't true..ie...it has not been proved.
The book was banned which appears to overturn the previous judgement of a higher court...something isn't quite right
-
Try turning the issue on its head: at what point did the parents ever LOSE the right to the presumption of innocence?
The judge said 'It is not illegal to sustain the thesis according to which Madeleine McCann died in the apartment of Praia da Luz and her body was concealed by her parents'. So the presumption of innocence doesn't prevent someone saying that in Portugal, apparently. It is only those involved in the judicial process who should uphold the presumption of innocence. The question is whether that applies to retired SIO's and whether the right to be presumed innocent applies to everyone or just to suspects.
-
Have we seen the full judgement?...some of it does not really make sense...for instance it does say it is proved that the dogs reacted to a cadaver when we know this isn't true..ie...it has not been proved.
The book was banned which appears to overturn the previous judgement of a higher court...something isn't quite right
I think that that was one of the points that Oxfordbloo was trying to point out.
The facts in the proven list are a mixture of those that can indeed be verified (the fact that the parents were married, the dates of birth, the fact that they were in Portugal, Amaral's verifiable gains, etc.) and those that can't.
There are a number of points that were accepted as factual for the purposes of the trial: e.g, it is a fact that TdeA had written a report in which in which it was stated where the dogs alerted and what to.
However, testing the veracity of anything that appeared in the police files was considered to be off bounds. He could have said that the moon was made of blue cheese - it would still be a fact (in the sense that such a statement could hypothetically be found to exist in the police files) for the purposes of the civil trial.
-
The judge said 'It is not illegal to sustain the thesis according to which Madeleine McCann died in the apartment of Praia da Luz and her body was concealed by her parents'. So the presumption of innocence doesn't prevent someone saying that in Portugal, apparently. It is only those involved in the judicial process who should uphold the presumption of innocence. The question is whether that applies to retired SIO's and whether the right to be presumed innocent applies to everyone or just to suspects.
Yes, she did say that - and that bothers me in a broader context than just this case as the implication is that if one is Portuguese then it's perfectly ok to go around accusing anyone of murdering your great-aunt and microwaving bits of her for breakfast. And then that doesn't quite make sense as everybody and his brother appears to have a complaint lodged for the criminal act of insulting one's "honour"...
That aside, there is presumably a distinction somewhere along the line between the presumption of innocence in terms of the right to a fair trial (once someone has been charged) and the presumption of innocence as a basic human right even in Portugal.
In theory, a "suspect" isn't necessarily the same as an arguido, but again, in theory, the fact that you have been helping the police with their enquiries isn't meant to be splashed over the front page of every tabloid. Did the landlord in the Yeates case deserve the lurid headlines?
-
I have read the ECHR Article 6 (2) and it seems to be about the right of suspects to the presumption of innocence.. Were the McCanns suspects at the time?
The Drs McCann were neither charged nor brought to trial therefore they were always considered innocent.
Mr Amaral was charged with a criminal offence for which he was found guilty in a court of law, the guilt being reaffirmed when he lost his appeal.
Therefore in some peoples' topsy turvy view of the world the McCanns right to the presumption of innocence is under constant 'questioning' and 'doubting' ... by the same group of individuals who hang on the every word of a man convicted of the crime of perjury.
It is difficult to comprehend why the guilty impugning the innocent has had such currency for eight years. In my opinion the judgement against Mr Amaral doesn't go near to redressing the harm he has done ... perhaps the size of the award will concentrate minds on the deeper implication of that.
Who knows ~ that could include those in the appeal court?
The presumption of innocence guarantees the innocence of a person charged with a criminal offence until proved guilty according to law. Alongside international instruments, [7] this principle is endorsed by Art. 6.2 of the ECHR and Art. 48.1 of the EU Charter of Fundamental Rights
-
A subsidiary question to this as I have posted is; "Did the judge have the powers to do this" ?
The judgement seems to have been based on a premise outside the terms of the writ being tried.
Or putting it another way "Was she allowed to do this under the terms of the contract"?
A good point Alice, I would have thought she was bound by the original complaint regardless of any breaches in judicial secrecy laws.
-
A good point Alice, I would have thought she was bound by the original complaint regardless of any breaches in judicial secrecy laws.
What do you mean by the "original complaint"?
-
What do you mean by the "original complaint"?
The writ for damages.
-
Yes, she did say that - and that bothers me in a broader context than just this case as the implication is that if one is Portuguese then it's perfectly ok to go around accusing anyone of murdering your great-aunt and microwaving bits of her for breakfast. And then that doesn't quite make sense as everybody and his brother appears to have a complaint lodged for the criminal act of insulting one's "honour"...
That aside, there is presumably a distinction somewhere along the line between the presumption of innocence in terms of the right to a fair trial (once someone has been charged) and the presumption of innocence as a basic human right even in Portugal.
In theory, a "suspect" isn't necessarily the same as an arguido, but again, in theory, the fact that you have been helping the police with their enquiries isn't meant to be splashed over the front page of every tabloid. Did the landlord in the Yeates case deserve the lurid headlines?
Perhaps not illegal in a criminal sense, but not acceptable in a defamation sense? So you can't be arrested for saying it but you can be sued? The presumption of innocence similarly seems only to apply to suspects. I assume those not suspected would have to resort to suing also.
On the presumption of innocence question Article 6 (2) of the Human Rights Act says;
2 Everyone charged with a criminal offence shall be presumed innocent until proved guilty according to law.
Article 48 of the EU charter of fundamental rights says;
Article 48
Presumption of innocence and right of defence
1. Everyone who has been charged shall be presumed innocent until proved guilty according to law.
The UN Human Rights Committee has stated that the presumption of innocence imposes on the prosecution the burden of proving the charge and guarantees that no guilt can be presumed until the charge has been proved beyond reasonable doubt.
The Committee has also stated that public authorities should refrain from prejudging the outcome of a trial by making public statements affirming the guilt of the accused, and that the media should avoid news coverage undermining the presumption of innocence.
-
What is the argument here? That the McCanns only had the right to the presumption of innocence when they were arguidos, but when they ceased to be arguidos they were fair game to be accused of anything you like?
-
The Drs McCann were neither charged nor brought to trial therefore they were always considered innocent.
Mr Amaral was charged with a criminal offence for which he was found guilty in a court of law, the guilt being reaffirmed when he lost his appeal.
Therefore in some peoples' topsy turvy view of the world the McCanns right to the presumption of innocence is under constant 'questioning' and 'doubting' ... by the same group of individuals who hang on the every word of a man convicted of the crime of perjury.
It is difficult to comprehend why the guilty impugning the innocent has had such currency for eight years. In my opinion the judgement against Mr Amaral doesn't go near to redressing the harm he has done ... perhaps the size of the award will concentrate minds on the deeper implication of that.
Who knows ~ that could include those in the appeal court?
The presumption of innocence guarantees the innocence of a person charged with a criminal offence until proved guilty according to law. Alongside international instruments, [7] this principle is endorsed by Art. 6.2 of the ECHR and Art. 48.1 of the EU Charter of Fundamental Rights
His criminal guilt in a different case is presumably neither here nor there in terms of this case, but that and other private cases that he's lost might well make a dent in his earlier assertions in his defence that he was well-regarded (according to certain Internet sites) and that he had a potentially glorious future as a politician. Come to think of it, that no longer appears in the defence of the main trial...
-
What is the argument here? That the McCanns only had the right to the presumption of innocence when they were arguidos, but when they ceased to be arguidos they were fair game to be accused of anything you like?
Apparently... with the additional question as to whether it's legal to accuse anyone of any horrific crime under the sun even if you have never been a suspect / arguido at all. On the last point, the judge actually did state something to that effect, but whether that was intended to be taken in the context of honest comment by the average Joe Blow based on the contemporaneous general media frenzy surrounding that case or not isn't clear.
The sad irony is that the parentswhatdunnit media frenzy was based on leaks during Amaral's tenure... but I guess that that's out of bounds as well for the purposes of this trial.
-
I think that that was one of the points that Oxfordbloo was trying to point out.
The facts in the proven list are a mixture of those that can indeed be verified (the fact that the parents were married, the dates of birth, the fact that they were in Portugal, Amaral's verifiable gains, etc.) and those that can't.
There are a number of points that were accepted as factual for the purposes of the trial: e.g, it is a fact that TdeA had written a report in which in which it was stated where the dogs alerted and what to.
However, testing the veracity of anything that appeared in the police files was considered to be off bounds. He could have said that the moon was made of blue cheese - it would still be a fact (in the sense that such a statement could hypothetically be found to exist in the police files) for the purposes of the civil trial.
That isn't what it said in the judgement...that's why I question whether we have seen the full judgement
-
I see. You are simply questioning the judge's ability to do her job correctly, fair enough.
Am I?
-
Am I?
yes.
-
yes.
OK
-
Apparently... with the additional question as to whether it's legal to accuse anyone of any horrific crime under the sun even if you have never been a suspect / arguido at all. On the last point, the judge actually did state something to that effect, but whether that was intended to be taken in the context of honest comment by the average Joe Blow based on the contemporaneous general media frenzy surrounding that case or not isn't clear.
The sad irony is that the parentswhatdunnit media frenzy was based on leaks during Amaral's tenure... but I guess that that's out of bounds as well for the purposes of this trial.
My take on things (for what it's worth, which ain't much on this forum) is that everyone is entitled to the presumption of innocence, even when suspected of or charged with a criminal offence. Your rights don't increase because you've become a suspect, they simply need reiterating legally so that the legal process isn't prejudiced. No doubt some smart alec will come along and tell me I'm completely wrong.
-
The Drs McCann were neither charged nor brought to trial therefore they were always considered innocent.
Mr Amaral was charged with a criminal offence for which he was found guilty in a court of law, the guilt being reaffirmed when he lost his appeal.
Therefore in some peoples' topsy turvy view of the world the McCanns right to the presumption of innocence is under constant 'questioning' and 'doubting' ... by the same group of individuals who hang on the every word of a man convicted of the crime of perjury.
It is difficult to comprehend why the guilty impugning the innocent has had such currency for eight years. In my opinion the judgement against Mr Amaral doesn't go near to redressing the harm he has done ... perhaps the size of the award will concentrate minds on the deeper implication of that.
Who knows ~ that could include those in the appeal court?
The presumption of innocence guarantees the innocence of a person charged with a criminal offence until proved guilty according to law. Alongside international instruments, [7] this principle is endorsed by Art. 6.2 of the ECHR and Art. 48.1 of the EU Charter of Fundamental Rights
The presumption of innocence applies to each individual offence, because someone is found guilty of one crime doesn't mean that their presumption of innocence is diminished subsequently.
-
The Universal Declaration of Human Rights says we are innocent until proven guilty. Nobody should be blamed for doing something until it is proven. When people say we did a bad thing we have the right to show it is not true.
I don't know how anyone would show that an accusation is untrue, however?
-
The Universal Declaration of Human Rights says we are innocent until proven guilty. Nobody should be blamed for doing something until it is proven. When people say we did a bad thing we have the right to show it is not true.
I don't know how anyone would show that an accusation is untrue, however?
When people say we did a bad thing the onus is on them to put up, shut up or face the potential consequences.
-
I don't know how anyone would show that an accusation is untrue, however?
When people say we did a bad thing the onus is on them to put up, shut up or face the potential consequences.
What consequences though? Is suing them the only option ?
-
What consequences though? Is suing them the only option ?
No, there are other options, eg a punch in the face.
-
That isn't what it said in the judgement...that's why I question whether we have seen the full judgement
I just double-checked: she doesn't cite TdeA directly in relation to the dogs, but she clearly refers to his report in relation to other issues, and the dogs do appear in his report.
However, I see your point: where are "alínea AR" and "AS" of the undisputed facts?
5. The body, the existence of which has been confirmed by the EVRD and CSI dogs but also by the results of the preliminary laboratory analyses, cannot be found.
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].
(...)
9. Pp. 2587-602 of the criminal investigation, 19.07.2007, chief Inspector Tavares de Almeida wrote a report in which the following section can be transcribed
:
"From all that was gathered, the facts point in the direction that the death of Madeleine McCann occurred, on the night of May 3rd of 2007, inside the apartment 5A, of the Ocean Club resort, occupied by the couple McCann and by their three children;" (...)
"From all that was exposed, it results from the Autos that :
A) The minor Madeleine McCann died in the apartment 5A of the Ocean Club resort, on the night of May 3rd of 2007;
B) A simulation of kidnapping occurred ;
C) In order to turn impossible the death of the minor before 22H00, a situation of vigil of the McCann children while they slept was invented ;
D) Kate McCann and Gerald McCann are involved in the concealment of the cadaver of their daughter Madeleine McCann;
E) At the present moment, it seems that there are no strong clues that the death of the minor wasn't due to a tragic accident;
F) From what was obtained until now, everything points out that the McCann, in self-defence, don't want to deliver immediately and voluntarily the cadaver, existing a strong possibility that the same was transported from the initial place of deposition. This situation is susceptible to raise questions about the circumstances under which the death of the minor occurred.
So we suggest that the 'Autos' be sent to the Public Prosecutor for Lagos, in order to proceed to :
G) an eventual new questioning of the arguidos (formal suspects) Kate and Gerry McCann ;
H) the evaluation of the measure of restraint to be applied in this case;” (p. 2601 of criminal Investigation Autos)
(...)
This theory of the facts comes from the own investigation, it is shaped in the chief inspector Tavares de Almeida's report (No. 9), it was an avenue pursued by the investigation (paragraphs 10 and 11), it determined the constitution of the claimants Gerald and Kate McCann as arguidos and was put within the reach of the media, and soon of the general public through a copy of the inquest (paragraphs 65 and 66) .
One wonders then what is the difference between 1) asserting – as it was done at a certain step of the investigation or as many commentators do – that there are indices of accidental death, concealment of the corpse and simulation of crime and 2) supporting this view as did the defendant Goncalo Amaral in those three mediums.
There is one aspect that stands out in this comparison and it is the particular relationship between the defendant Goncalo Amaral and the investigation...
-
I just double-checked: she doesn't cite TdeA directly in relation to the dogs, but she clearly refers to his report in relation to other issues, and the dogs do appear in his report.
However, I see your point: where are "alínea AR" and "AS" of the undisputed facts?
5. The body, the existence of which has been confirmed by the EVRD and CSI dogs but also by the results of the preliminary laboratory analyses, cannot be found.
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].
(...)
9. Pp. 2587-602 of the criminal investigation, 19.07.2007, chief Inspector Tavares de Almeida wrote a report in which the following section can be transcribed
:
"From all that was gathered, the facts point in the direction that the death of Madeleine McCann occurred, on the night of May 3rd of 2007, inside the apartment 5A, of the Ocean Club resort, occupied by the couple McCann and by their three children;" (...)
"From all that was exposed, it results from the Autos that :
A) The minor Madeleine McCann died in the apartment 5A of the Ocean Club resort, on the night of May 3rd of 2007;
B) A simulation of kidnapping occurred ;
C) In order to turn impossible the death of the minor before 22H00, a situation of vigil of the McCann children while they slept was invented ;
D) Kate McCann and Gerald McCann are involved in the concealment of the cadaver of their daughter Madeleine McCann;
E) At the present moment, it seems that there are no strong clues that the death of the minor wasn't due to a tragic accident;
F) From what was obtained until now, everything points out that the McCann, in self-defence, don't want to deliver immediately and voluntarily the cadaver, existing a strong possibility that the same was transported from the initial place of deposition. This situation is susceptible to raise questions about the circumstances under which the death of the minor occurred.
So we suggest that the 'Autos' be sent to the Public Prosecutor for Lagos, in order to proceed to :
G) an eventual new questioning of the arguidos (formal suspects) Kate and Gerry McCann ;
H) the evaluation of the measure of restraint to be applied in this case;” (p. 2601 of criminal Investigation Autos)
(...)
This theory of the facts comes from the own investigation, it is shaped in the chief inspector Tavares de Almeida's report (No. 9), it was an avenue pursued by the investigation (paragraphs 10 and 11), it determined the constitution of the claimants Gerald and Kate McCann as arguidos and was put within the reach of the media, and soon of the general public through a copy of the inquest (paragraphs 65 and 66) .
One wonders then what is the difference between 1) asserting – as it was done at a certain step of the investigation or as many commentators do – that there are indices of accidental death, concealment of the corpse and simulation of crime and 2) supporting this view as did the defendant Goncalo Amaral in those three mediums.
There is one aspect that stands out in this comparison and it is the particular relationship between the defendant Goncalo Amaral and the investigation...
So the investigation said the child died and they concealed the body. Other commentators said it. Amaral said it. The difference being the particular relationship between the defendant Goncalo Amaral and the investigation.
-
So the investigation said the child died and they concealed the body. Other commentators said it. Amaral said it. The difference being the particular relationship between the defendant Goncalo Amaral and the investigation.
No. The investigation did not conclude that the child had died... that's precisely part of the problem - a report supposedly written by his chum Tavares de Almeida (it was at least signed by him) came to that conclusion, but that was back in the early months of the investigation. Presenting an early goal scored as a team having won the match is at the very least misleading, don't you think?
-
No. The investigation did not conclude that the child had died... that's precisely part of the problem - a report supposedly written by his chum Tavares de Almeida (it was at least signed by him) came to that conclusion, but that was back in the early months of the investigation. Presenting an early goal scored as a team having won the match is at the very least misleading, don't you think?
Please don't split hairs. It was said;
asserting – as it was done at a certain step of the investigation or as many commentators do – that there are indices of accidental death, concealment of the corpse and simulation of crime
-
Please don't split hairs. It was said;
asserting – as it was done at a certain step of the investigation or as many commentators do – that there are indices of accidental death, concealment of the corpse and simulation of crime
I'm not splitting hairs - the initial stage of the investigation doesn't equate to the totality of it. Otherwise, we're back to Hitler won the war.
-
Please don't split hairs. It was said;
asserting – as it was done at a certain step of the investigation or as many commentators do – that there are indices of accidental death, concealment of the corpse and simulation of crime
It sounds to me as though it is you splitting hairs. Or deciding the end result on the half time score.
-
The investigation said it, others said it. I never said when they said it or why, and I never mentioned a conclusion so picking me up on that point is splitting hairs in my opinion. My main point was that Amaral was not allowed to say it in the judge's opinion because he had a certain relationship with the investigation.
-
The investigation said it, others said it. I never said when they said it or why, and I never mentioned a conclusion so picking me up on that point is splitting hairs in my opinion. My main point was that Amaral was not allowed to say it in the judge's opinion because he had a certain relationship with the investigation.
You are wrong as usual...the investigation in the early stages gave accidental death as one of the possibilities...amaral stated it as fact...
-
The investigation said it, others said it. I never said when they said it or why, and I never mentioned a conclusion so picking me up on that point is splitting hairs in my opinion. My main point was that Amaral was not allowed to say it in the judge's opinion because he had a certain relationship with the investigation.
Yes. That appears to be the case.
-
Yes. That appears to be the case.
Have we really seen the entire judgement?
-
Have we really seen the entire judgement?
I'm wondering about that - has anyone found these "alinea AR", "AS" and whatever others there may have been? I can't find them...
-
@ Davel
Clearly not all of the documents are online: there are apparently over 1000 pages related to the injunction and another 1000+ for the main trial.
http://pjga.blogspot.com/2015/05/proven-facts-in-civil-trial-english.html?utm_source=BP_recent
-
Getting back to the opening post and the question as to whether the €500k should have been seized by the State, I for one believe it should have been. Awarding a couple over half a million Euros on the basis of unproven emotional damages in a case which has not yet been solved is madness.
-
Getting back to the opening post and the question as to whether the €500k should have been seized by the State, I for one believe it should have been. Awarding a couple over half a million Euros on the basis of unproven emotional damages in a case which has not yet been solved is madness.
Some of us have claimed for 8 years that the McCanns are innocent until proven guilty...we have been proved right
-
Some of us have claimed for 8 years that the McCanns are innocent until proven guilty...we have been proved right
The presumption of innocence is a worldwide phenomena in theory but seldom happens in real life.
-
The presumption of innocence is a worldwide phenomena in theory but seldom happens in real life.
it seems that's what amaral has been punished for...as a policeman amaral should have realised this
-
The amaral gofundme page is a perfect example of the hatred amaral has generated against the parents with the lies he has told......
number one...the dog's alerted to cadaver in the apartment and car...
The comments on this site could be good evidence against amaral for the appeal...should it happen
-
The amaral gofundme page is a perfect example of the hatred amaral has generated against the parents with the lies he has told......
number one...the dog's alerted to cadaver in the apartment and car...
The comments on this site could be good evidence against amaral for the appeal...should it happen
TOTAL ROLLOCKS.
Haven't you worked out yet, many people don't believe the mccanns story, and it wasn't just Amaral in the PJ who didn't swallow their story.
'The comments on this site could be good evidence against amaral for the appeal...should it happen'. @)(++(* @)(++(* @)(++(* @)(++(*
-
TOTAL ROLLOCKS.
Haven't you worked out yet, many people don't believe the mccanns story, and it wasn't just Amaral in the PJ who didn't swallow their story.
'The comments on this site could be good evidence against amaral for the appeal...should it happen'. @)(++(* @)(++(* @)(++(* @)(++(*
it was amaral who couldn't understand the evidence..it's on record
-
TOTAL ROLLOCKS.
Haven't you worked out yet, many people don't believe the mccanns story, and it wasn't just Amaral in the PJ who didn't swallow their story.
'The comments on this site could be good evidence against amaral for the appeal...should it happen'. @)(++(* @)(++(* @)(++(* @)(++(*
so tell me...how many people don't believe the mccanns story....
-
it was amaral who couldn't understand the evidence..it's on record
Since when has the accidental death scenario been disproved ?
-
so tell me...how many people don't believe the mccanns story....
As a good sample of opinion, look at the comments on the recent articles on the mccanns in the Mail.
-
The amaral gofundme page is a perfect example of the hatred amaral has generated against the parents with the lies he has told......
number one...the dog's alerted to cadaver in the apartment and car...
The comments on this site could be good evidence against amaral for the appeal...should it happen
How could comments on the internet have any relevance to Amaral's appeal?
-
Getting back to the opening post and the question as to whether the €500k should have been seized by the State, I for one believe it should have been. Awarding a couple over half a million Euros on the basis of unproven emotional damages in a case which has not yet been solved is madness.
Perhaps the fact that the Drs McCann tried and failed to reach an out of court settlement played out badly against the defendant.
Settlement in 2013 would almost certainly not have been set at the level decided by the Court in 2015.
McCanns and Amaral fail to reach settlement
BY BRENDAN DE BEER, IN ALGARVE · 20-02-2013
Kate and Gerry McCann sued Amaral for 1.2 million euros in damages, and the case was put on hold due to an apparent attempt in January by the McCanns to reach an out-of-court settlement.
http://www.theportugalnews.com/news/mccanns-and-amaral-fail-to-reach-settlement/27800
-
Perhaps the fact that the Drs McCann tried and failed to reach an out of court settlement played out badly against the defendant.
Settlement in 2013 would almost certainly not have been set at the level decided by the Court in 2015.
McCanns and Amaral fail to reach settlement
BY BRENDAN DE BEER, IN ALGARVE · 20-02-2013
Kate and Gerry McCann sued Amaral for 1.2 million euros in damages, and the case was put on hold due to an apparent attempt in January by the McCanns to reach an out-of-court settlement.
http://www.theportugalnews.com/news/mccanns-and-amaral-fail-to-reach-settlement/27800
They were asking for 1.2 million then, I doubt if they would have settled for half. Also he would then have had to agree with all their allegations. The trial found that he didn't harm the search or the children.
-
They were asking for 1.2 million then, I doubt if they would have settled for half. Also he would then have had to agree with all their allegations. The trial found that he didn't harm the search or the children.
Precisely.
The mccanns wanted their cake..........
-
They were asking for 1.2 million then, I doubt if they would have settled for half. Also he would then have had to agree with all their allegations. The trial found that he didn't harm the search or the children.
You have no idea what the McCanns would have accepted to settle out of court so please don't pretend that you do.
-
They were asking for 1.2 million then, I doubt if they would have settled for half. Also he would then have had to agree with all their allegations. The trial found that he didn't harm the search or the children.
You have no idea what was discussed in 2013 ... the intransigence of which may have led to the substantial award made against the defendant. Don't forget, having written his own script ... he actually believed it, but failed to take into consideration the seismic changes brought about by the sheer amount of diligences omitted in Madeleine's case and discovered by SY and the PJ.
More importantly ... Carana has given us an analogy which fits the bill perfectly ... he was ignoring the full time score in preference for the half time one in a way which was prejudicial to the Drs McCann.
-
How could comments on the internet have any relevance to Amaral's appeal?
they are a perfect example of how amaral has falsely encouraged people to defame the mccanns with his false allegations...isn't that obvious
-
From John's OP:
If Amaral broke the Law in publishing the material he did, would it not have been better sense for the State to confiscate his earnings as a fine leaving the plaintiffs with a nominal sum plus costs?
I'm not sure how many people here agree with that idea, but a question for those who do:
If, for some reason, the ruling were overturned and Amaral "won" (or the award is reduced to a nominal amount), do you still believe that the gains should be turned over to the State, or should Amaral be allowed to keep his gains?
Just curious...
-
You have no idea what the McCanns would have accepted to settle out of court so please don't pretend that you do.
I'm allowed an opinion though and that's it. Perhaps they would have been happy if he just accepted the blame and paid them no money? They did say it was never about money. Amaral chose to take it to the wire and some of the McCanns claims were not proven, so he may think he was right not to accept their offer (whatever it was).
-
they are a perfect example of how amaral has falsely encouraged people to defame the mccanns with his false allegations...isn't that obvious
People don't need to read Amaral's views to doubt the mccanns story.
-
I'm allowed an opinion though and that's it. Perhaps they would have been happy if he just accepted the blame and paid them no money? They did say it was never about money. Amaral chose to take it to the wire and some of the McCanns claims were not proven, so he may think he was right not to accept their offer (whatever it was).
you're entitled to say and think whatever you like (within reason) just as I am entitled to point out that you have arrived at an opinion based on nothing apart from your own gut feel and prejudices.
-
Perhaps the fact that the Drs McCann tried and failed to reach an out of court settlement played out badly against the defendant.
Settlement in 2013 would almost certainly not have been set at the level decided by the Court in 2015.
McCanns and Amaral fail to reach settlement
BY BRENDAN DE BEER, IN ALGARVE · 20-02-2013
Kate and Gerry McCann sued Amaral for 1.2 million euros in damages, and the case was put on hold due to an apparent attempt in January by the McCanns to reach an out-of-court settlement.
http://www.theportugalnews.com/news/mccanns-and-amaral-fail-to-reach-settlement/27800
I thought the accepted wisdom was that the McCanns did not try to settle out of court?
It is unusual that the plaintiffs should try to settle out of court rather than the defendants.
But then this case is unusual pretty well everywhere one looks ..........
-
I know this is going to get scrubbed pdq (sorry in advance mods) but I couldn't resist ... 8)-)))
But I would rather be a Troll then support the dishonest story played out by Madeleine’s parents. I will also pledge 10p per mile for Kate’s bike ride. I could be petty and hope Kate gets enormous blisters on her arse during her ride, but then some individual would have to lance them and I would not wish that on anyone. Justice for Goncalo, Madeleine and Brenda and well done Leanne. Jo Petteford £20
All preceded with the usual judgemental hogwash ... but I would have thought she would have welcomed the opportunity to personally stick a knife into Kate's bum particularly as she is so adept at sticking one into her back.
-
I thought the accepted wisdom was that the McCanns did not try to settle out of court?
It is unusual that the plaintiffs should try to settle out of court rather than the defendants.
But then this case is unusual pretty well everywhere one looks ..........
They had more to do with their time and energy perhaps ... at a time when law enforcement were taking Madeleine's case very seriously.
-
They had more to do with their time and energy perhaps ... at a time when law enforcement were taking Madeleine's case very seriously.
You mean searching ? 8)--))
-
From John's OP:
If Amaral broke the Law in publishing the material he did, would it not have been better sense for the State to confiscate his earnings as a fine leaving the plaintiffs with a nominal sum plus costs?
I'm not sure how many people here agree with that idea, but a question for those who do:
If, for some reason, the ruling were overturned and Amaral "won" (or the award is reduced to a nominal amount), do you still believe that the gains should be turned over to the State, or should Amaral be allowed to keep his gains?
Just curious...
It was reported long ago that the McCanns lodged a formal complaint with the PJ that Amaral breached the judicial secrecy laws. If they did, then no action seems to have been taken. That suggests that the state authorities had no interest in the matter. This trial is civil, not criminal, so I don't see how the State is involved at all. Surely a criminal trial would be needed? If he should win on appeal then he keeps his money, the McCanns keep their money and they just pay their share of the costs, surely?
-
I thought the accepted wisdom was that the McCanns did not try to settle out of court?
It is unusual that the plaintiffs should try to settle out of court rather than the defendants.
But then this case is unusual pretty well everywhere one looks ..........
I don't think it is unusual..in facts it's encouraged... for the plaintiffs to offer to settle out of court
-
They had more to do with their time and energy perhaps ... at a time when law enforcement were taking Madeleine's case very seriously.
I thought the writ was issued after the case was archived by the Portuguese and before any involvement by The Met?
So which law enforcement agency was "taking it very seriously" at that time?
-
I thought the accepted wisdom was that the McCanns did not try to settle out of court?
It is unusual that the plaintiffs should try to settle out of court rather than the defendants.
But then this case is unusual pretty well everywhere one looks ..........
I'm not sure that that was ever more than a factoid. Brendan de Beer does attempt to check facts, but even he has prefaced the claim with "apparent".
Even if there had been an attempt at negotiations, it's unclear who would be responsible for announcing this to the judge. I would have thought it would have to be the claimants (whoever actually initiated it), but perhaps Jean-Pierre would have more information on that.
If ever the McCanns did attempt a negotiation, it may simply have been to put an end to the never-ending circus, particularly as the investigation had finally been reopened.
-
I thought the writ was issued after the case was archived by the Portuguese and before any involvement by The Met?
So which law enforcement agency was "taking it very seriously" at that time?
The pertinent 'time scale' under discussion is the 2013 attempt to settle the matter out of court.
-
I know this is going to get scrubbed pdq (sorry in advance mods) but I couldn't resist ... 8)-)))
But I would rather be a Troll then support the dishonest story played out by Madeleine’s parents. I will also pledge 10p per mile for Kate’s bike ride. I could be petty and hope Kate gets enormous blisters on her arse during her ride, but then some individual would have to lance them and I would not wish that on anyone. Justice for Goncalo, Madeleine and Brenda and well done Leanne. Jo Petteford £20
All preceded with the usual judgemental hogwash ... but I would have thought she would have welcomed the opportunity to personally stick a knife into Kate's bum particularly as she is so adept at sticking one into her back.
A perfect example of a "sceptic" "only asking questions" I guess!!
-
A perfect example of a "sceptic" "only asking questions" I guess!!
Tell me alfred, why should people believe the accounts of events of the mccanns and associates, when they are not consistent ?
-
Tell me alfred, why should people believe the accounts of events of the mccanns and associates, when they are not consistent ?
Because I say so. 8)--))
-
I'm not sure that that was ever more than a factoid. Brendan de Beer does attempt to check facts, but even he has prefaced the claim with "apparent".
Even if there had been an attempt at negotiations, it's unclear who would be responsible for announcing this to the judge. I would have thought it would have to be the claimants (whoever actually initiated it), but perhaps Jean-Pierre would have more information on that.
If ever the McCanns did attempt a negotiation, it may simply have been to put an end to the never-ending circus, particularly as the investigation had finally been reopened.
I think the case may have been interrupted to allow for discussion between the parties, Carana.
Googling ~amaral v mccann discussion of out of court settlement ~ brings up a few references particularly in the mccannfiles (which I can't be bothered ploughing through).
There is also a video https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cewVx7cydak which I have not yet watched saying the same ... the spin seems to have been that the McCanns knew they would be defeated in Court and were thus anxious to settle ... and I think Mr Amaral and his friends really believed that.
It would have been so easy for him to settle in 2013 and keep that particular fiction going ... bet he regretted it when the Court actually did make the decision.
Therefore the amount awarded is no-one's fault but his own and deserves no criticism.
-
It was reported long ago that the McCanns lodged a formal complaint with the PJ that Amaral breached the judicial secrecy laws. If they did, then no action seems to have been taken. That suggests that the state authorities had no interest in the matter. This trial is civil, not criminal, so I don't see how the State is involved at all. Surely a criminal trial would be needed? If he should win on appeal then he keeps his money, the McCanns keep their money and they just pay their share of the costs, surely?
One thing we'll probably never know is whether he retired voluntarily or not...
-
One thing we'll probably never know is whether he retired voluntarily or not...
Which is about as relevant as making the same statement about a certain GP.
-
I think the case may have been interrupted to allow for discussion between the parties, Carana.
Googling ~amaral v mccann discussion of out of court settlement ~ brings up a few references particularly in the mccannfiles (which I can't be bothered ploughing through).
There is also a video https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cewVx7cydak which I have not yet watched saying the same ... the spin seems to have been that the McCanns knew they would be defeated in Court and were thus anxious to settle ... and I think Mr Amaral and his friends really believed that.
It would have been so easy for him to settle in 2013 and keep that particular fiction going ... bet he regretted it when the Court actually did make the decision.
Therefore the amount awarded is no-one's fault but his own and deserves no criticism.
LOL Brietta.
The source would appear to be Hêrnani Carvalho... best known for promoting Dear Jùlia's matinée show in TVMais (the national TV guide). Hmmm.
-
Which is about as relevant as making the same statement about a certain GP.
Apples and oranges, IMO.
One would have concerned professional faults, the other not.
-
LOL Brietta.
The source would appear to be Hêrnani Carvalho... best known for promoting Dear Jùlia's matinée show in TVMais (the national TV guide). Hmmm.
I've just sat through it Carana, which led to one I've been looking for where a discussion took place regarding golf bags or sports bags with Mr Amaral and H Carvalho framing an entirely non-prejudicial photograph of Madeleine's father in the background ~ on a golf course complete with golf bag.
Julia was at pains to accredit the British photographer ... but omitted to say it was also a British golf course ... leaving the audience with a subliminal message.
People were making a very good living from Madeleine if the number of interviews on Portuguese television is anything to go by.
I don't recall any of these earnings being asked about or sequestered by the Court. Having a pension above the Portuguese average, even allowing for the amount deducted for tax debts, Mr Amaral could be expected to have been making a comfortable living for himself.
The court seems to have considered only what could be proved to have been the proceeds from monies accruing to him from the sales of his book ... therefore if that is the money being used to pay the award to the injured party ... I think it is perfectly justified.
-
The pertinent 'time scale' under discussion is the 2013 attempt to settle the matter out of court.
So the first four years of the life of the writ were like "The Phoney War" ?
-
I've just sat through it Carana, which led to one I've been looking for where a discussion took place regarding golf bags or sports bags with Mr Amaral and H Carvalho framing an entirely non-prejudicial photograph of Madeleine's father in the background ~ on a golf course complete with golf bag.
Julia was at pains to accredit the British photographer ... but omitted to say it was also a British golf course ... leaving the audience with a subliminal message.
People were making a very good living from Madeleine if the number of interviews on Portuguese television is anything to go by.
I don't recall any of these earnings being asked about or sequestered by the Court. Having a pension above the Portuguese average, even allowing for the amount deducted for tax debts, Mr Amaral could be expected to have been making a comfortable living for himself.
The court seems to have considered only what could be proved to have been the proceeds from monies accruing to him from the sales of his book ... therefore if that is the money being used to pay the award to the injured party ... I think it is perfectly justified.
And the docu / DVD deal.
His "agent" attempted to charge a media outlet connected to Sky €80k + VAT for an interview, so how many others did he charge for?
-
Tell me alfred, why should people believe the accounts of events of the mccanns and associates, when they are not consistent ?
because as everybody knows..particularly experienced detectives...recall is not perfect...having said that only a very small group doubt the mccanns so who cares
-
because as everybody knows..particularly experienced detectives...recall is not perfect...having said that only a very small group doubt the mccanns so who cares
The statement is based on what kind of survey by whom?
-
Does anyone have any figures on how much GA earned from sales of The English Gag?
-
Which is about as relevant as making the same statement about a certain GP.
Did we ever find out the reason for her giving up her job? apart from that old 'looking for Madeleine chestnut'.
I believe it is more to do with the 'celebrity' personas they have now.
-
Did we ever find out the reason for her giving up her job? apart from that old 'looking for Madeleine chestnut'.
I believe it is more to do with the 'celebrity' personas they have now.
I saw an interview where she said 'the search' was 'her full-time job now'. She said she updated the website and dealt with sales, I think.
Here's interesting, but I think the newspaper misunderstood what was being proposed. Kate had no intention of being a child-minder, she was already thinking in terms of something like her ambassadorial role for missing children, but paid, I expect.
Kate McCann wants a job caring for children full-time once the mystery of missing Madeleine is solved.
A friend said: Kate doesn’t want to go back to being a locum GP. She wants a new career in child welfare.
It has been suggested that Mrs McCann is now best placed to help other parents and children who suffer such trauma.
Read more: http://metro.co.uk/2007/10/22/maddies-mum-wants-job-in-childcare-384801/#ixzz3cjidSBJ5
-
One point which I believe has never been discussed is the value of the damages claim and the alternatives.
My own view is that €500,000 plus interest should not have gone to the plaintiffs in damages. Although it is nigh impossible to put a price on what the McCanns claimed to have suffered due to Amarals book, such an award is unheard of in Portugal.
If Amaral broke the Law in publishing the material he did, would it not have been better sense for the State to confiscate his earnings as a fine leaving the plaintiffs with a nominal sum plus costs?
76
the money awarded, like all other monies "awarded" or "made" or donated goes into the " m mccann fund" and is purportedly all spent to find their daughter, so no one can "criticise that", whether it is true or not, in gerry mccanns words "the vast majority" of the monies goes directly on "search fees " Yes gerry of course it does
-
Goncalo Amaral should have been prevented from day one. His earnings were ill gotten. After that, I don't care what they do with it.
-
Goncalo Amaral should have been prevented from day one. His earnings were ill gotten. After that, I don't care what they do with it.
and the parents receiving money after what they did?????
-
Goncalo Amaral should have been prevented from day one. His earnings were ill gotten. After that, I don't care what they do with it.
Him writing about the case he worked in is no more ill gotten gains than the mccanns selling their story to every tabloid who would pay especially the SUN telling us how they couldnt "make love"!
But Im sure "every penny gained" went "directly on search fees *cough* sure it did
-
and the parents receiving money after what they did?????
Sorry, Stephen. I can't get off on what The McCanns did, especially as I did the same myself. But then you know that, since I have never made a secret of it.
But it was never about the money for The McCanns. And you know very well that Amaral would just have gone on and on and on.
Nasty, nasty man.
-
Him writing about the case he worked in is no more ill gotten gains than the mccanns selling their story to every tabloid who would pay especially the SUN telling us how they couldnt "make love"!
But Im sure "every penny gained" went "directly on search fees *cough* sure it did
Neither The British Courts or The Portuguese Courts agree with you.
-
Neither The British Courts or The Portuguese Courts agree with you.
Pray tell what british court doesnt agree with me LOL and why did g mccann lie about where the funds went? Logging off now but look forward to your answer, thats IF you dont delete my post of course ;)