If the Supreme Court kicks out their final appeal it will be very embarrassing and very expensive.
I don't think it will be embarrassing for any but the Portuguese State.
'The old order changeth' ... but the new hasn't quite had time to bed itself in.
The world has watched as Madeleine's case has been reopened by the Policia Judiciaria in Portugal and Scotland Yard in the UK.
Both law enforcement agencies have affirmed that neither Madeleine's parents or their friends are the subject of their investigations the focus of their enquiries being directed elsewhere.
In my opinion that brings an eight year old narrative accusing them of involvement in Madeleine's death and hiding her body into disrepute.
Anyway ~ have I missed the answer to my query asking where the story about the £266,000 originated?
I don't think it will be embarrassing for any but the Portuguese State.
'The old order changeth' ... but the new hasn't quite had time to bed itself in.
The world has watched as Madeleine's case has been reopened by the Policia Judiciaria in Portugal and Scotland Yard in the UK.
Both law enforcement agencies have affirmed that neither Madeleine's parents or their friends are the subject of their investigations the focus of their enquiries being directed elsewhere.
In my opinion that brings an eight year old narrative accusing them of involvement in Madeleine's death and hiding her body into disrepute.
Anyway ~ have I missed the answer to my query asking where the story about the £266,000 originated?
The world has also watched how the PJ, now and then, and SY have got nowhere in the investigation.
If the Supreme Court kicks out their final appeal it will be very embarrassing and very expensive.And vice versa.
If the Supreme Court kicks out their final appeal it will be very embarrassing and very expensive.So have they put an appeal to the Supreme Court?
And vice versa.
I wonder if the Supreme Court could take a third way;LOL at "tiny amount of damage" - where does that appear in the judgement?
Agree with the lower court judgement but reduce the compensation to a nominal amount of, say, E100 each?
The McCann's honour would be satisfied, although they would gain no money; but it's not about the money, so that's OK.
Amaral's honour would be satisfied because the judgement of the lower court rested on his employment obligations, nothing else. The nominal damages would demonstrate the tiny amount of damage caused. He would get his money back, so according to those who see him as a money-grabber he would be happy.
LOL at "tiny amount of damage" - where does that appear in the judgement?
Wouldn't G Unit's suggestion be the best outcome. The McCann's reputation would be restored as they technically would have won ?It's pure conjecture and far more likely that their appeal will be rejected IMO - I await the delighted crowing with baited breath. But still interested in this "tiny damage" that appears in the ruling...?
It's pure conjecture and far more likely that their appeal will be rejected IMO - I await the delighted crowing with baited breath. But still interested in this "tiny damage" that appears in the ruling...?
LOL at "tiny amount of damage" - where does that appear in the judgement?
Have you read the facts?Yes I have read the facts, but nowhere do I recall the judge stating that the amount of damage caused to the McCanns by the book was "tiny". Not even your detailed response with quotes and cites above quantifies the damage as "tiny". Certainly the damages awarded by the first judge were not "tiny".
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.
But! The judge adds that this psychological state is predates the book launch, the documentary and the interview and was not caused by them.
Proved that the couple felt badly about being considered responsible over the hiding of their daughter's body and simulating her abduction by those who believe in Mr Amaral's thesis.
But! The Judge states that it is not possible to determine what most people who have read or seen Mr Amaral's thesis actually think.
http://miscarriageofjustice.co/index.php?topic=5931.0
So even the proved points are 'watered down' by the judge's additional comments. At no point is she able to say Amaral was solely responsible for any of the McCann's hurt feelings or for lowering their reputations. Perhaps because the investigation, for which he was not solely responsible, had already done that?
As I have said before, the award to the McCanns seemed to be more about punishing him than compensating them.
Wouldn't G Unit's suggestion be the best outcome. The McCann's reputation would be restored as they technically would have won ?Both sides are losers here, the McCanns and the Amarals. Somehow I think it might be time to really find the root cause of the issue.
could you expand Alfie?Upon what would you like me to expand Faithlilly?
Yes I have read the facts, but nowhere do I recall the judge stating that the amount of damage caused to the McCanns by the book was "tiny". Not even your detailed response with quotes and cites above quantifies the damage as "tiny". Certainly the damages awarded by the first judge were not "tiny".
Upon what would you like me to expand Faithlilly?
Have you read the facts?
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.
But! The judge adds that this psychological state is predates the book launch, the documentary and the interview and was not caused by them.
Proved that the couple felt badly about being considered responsible over the hiding of their daughter's body and simulating her abduction by those who believe in Mr Amaral's thesis.
But! The Judge states that it is not possible to determine what most people who have read or seen Mr Amaral's thesis actually think.
http://miscarriageofjustice.co/index.php?topic=5931.0
So even the proved points are 'watered down' by the judge's additional comments. At no point is she able to say Amaral was solely responsible for any of the McCann's hurt feelings or for lowering their reputations. Perhaps because the investigation, for which he was not solely responsible, had already done that?
As I have said before, the award to the McCanns seemed to be more about punishing him than compensating them.
As the appeal judges overturned the first court judge's decision it's somewhat academic now the wording used.Well G-Unit introduced the first court judge's decision into this conversation and claimed the damage caused by the book was "tiny", hence the discussion now. If you think it's off-topic either don't join in or report us.
PS: the above in bold makes no sense. The second statement completely contradicts the first - are these your words or the judge's?
Full quote;It had an effect, no mention of it having a "tiny" effect then. Thanks for clarifying.
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.
http://miscarriageofjustice.co/index.php?topic=5931.0
It had an effect, no mention of it having a "tiny" effect then. Thanks for clarifying.
No mention of any damage by the book at all. Isn't that the important fact ?
No mention of any damage by the book at all. Isn't that the important fact ?Are you saying that you believe this to be true?
The book did irreparable damage to the reputation of the McCanns. What price the good name of a doctor?
The book did irreparable damage to the reputation of the McCanns. What price the good name of a doctor?
The book did irreparable damage to the reputation of the McCanns. What price the good name of a doctor?
well i think you will find the mccs did a pretty good job of that themselves .....
when they left the children alone
and it seems some are far more concerned about reputation ...than what happened to maddie
No mention of any damage by the book at all. Isn't that the important fact ?What were the damages awarded for then?
Can you quote anything at all in support of that statement, or is it just what you think?
There isn't enough room here to c&p all the detrimental internet postings & news reports arising as a direct result of the contents of Amaral's book & subsequent TV documentary.
So there was nothing detrimental posted on the internet or written in the media before Amaral's book and documentary? Really? I wonder why Express Newspapers paid the McCanns half a million pounds in damages six months before the book was published then?All news reports and internet chat about the specific content in Amaral's book could not have appeared prior to the publication of the book, unless it was serialized somewhere...? No one has ever suggested that Amaral's book was the only publication that caused damage to the McCanns have they?
Did the detrimental writings begin after a] the publication of the book and the screening of the documentary or b] the translations being made available?
Are you able to post any media reports from any newspaper before the above events and after them to demonstrate your asserted causal link between the publication or translation of the book and the change of attitude of the newspaper?
My guess is that you cannot. If you cannot you cannot prove your assertion and it's one of those 'myths'.
In my opinion Amaral's book was far more damaging than any tabloid article or internet gossip because of his position in the investigation, and how this lent the book an air of authority and authenticity (despite the fact that the book is littered with inaccuracies and falsehoods).
So there was nothing detrimental posted on the internet or written in the media before Amaral's book and documentary? Really? I wonder why Express Newspapers paid the McCanns half a million pounds in damages six months before the book was published then?
Did the detrimental writings begin after a] the publication of the book and the screening of the documentary or b] the translations being made available?
Are you able to post any media reports from any newspaper before the above events and after them to demonstrate your asserted causal link between the publication or translation of the book and the change of attitude of the newspaper?
My guess is that you cannot. If you cannot you cannot prove your assertion and it's one of those 'myths'.
In case anyone had forgotten the publicity generated by Amaral's book - was it not published to coincide with the McCanns being cleared as arguidos and the case archived also? So whilst the archiving report clearly stated a lack of evidence, at the same time the ex-cop is promoting a book which claims to be full of it. But, of course, no harm done, eh?
http://www.mccannfiles.com/id131.html
http://www.mccannfiles.com/id164.html
http://www.mccannfiles.com/id164.html
http://www.mccannfiles.com/id241.html
http://www.mccannfiles.com/id180.html
In my opinion Amaral's book was far more damaging than any tabloid article or internet gossip because of his position in the investigation, and how this lent the book an air of authority and authenticity (despite the fact that the book is littered with inaccuracies and falsehoods).In a search for something entirely unrelated, I have had to trawl through many Portuguese media reports that appeared before Amaral's book appeared, and it is clear that the damage was well and truly done before the date of publication.
But then you don't believe Amaral, neither does misty nor, I believe, does anyone you talk to, or so you claim, so where's the harm?Not everyone is as good at detecting bullshit when one sees it as Misty and I, some people will believe any old crap they read, some people WANT to believe any old crap they read. If only half the world believed it, that's still a lot of harm!
In a search for something entirely unrelated, I have had to trawl through many Portuguese media reports that appeared before Amaral's book appeared, and it is clear that the damage was well and truly done before the date of publication.If you read a story in the Daily Star, you take it with a pinch of salt. If you read the same story in a book by a police detective who worked on the case you treat it with more credulity. Or does that not apply to you?
For example, 24 Horas claimed falsely that initial reports on testing of hair samples, conducted in both the UK and in Portugal, showed that Madeleine and the twins had been drugged with sedatives. Whether this revelation was from someone in the PJ team or whether it was a figment of the imagination of 24 Horas - make up your own mind.
It is clear that the scandalous accusations were getting through to the McCanns, given the number of rebuttals stating they were entirely untrue.
Based on what I have seen, the McCann reputation was damaged beyond repair in advance of the publication of Amaral's book, at least within Portugal. Since my recent search was based on a Portuguese topic covered mainly in Portuguese media, I have seen only a limited amount of how these allegations affected the reputation of the McCanns in say, the UK, Ireland, France etc.
AFAIK, the book had little impact in the UK, but if someone has evidence to support a different conclusion, kindly provide it.
Not everyone is as good at detecting bullshit when one sees it as Misty and I, some people will believe any old crap they read, some people WANT to believe any old crap they read. If only half the world believed it, that's still a lot of harm!
If you read a story in the Daily Star, you take it with a pinch of salt. If you read the same story in a book by a police detective who worked on the case you treat it with more credulity. Or does that not apply to you?I am pointing out this has no relevance. Within Portugal, the McCanns were already dead ducks. One cannot make a dead duck any deader, no matter what.
In a search for something entirely unrelated, I have had to trawl through many Portuguese media reports that appeared before Amaral's book appeared, and it is clear that the damage was well and truly done before the date of publication.
For example, 24 Horas claimed falsely that initial reports on testing of hair samples, conducted in both the UK and in Portugal, showed that Madeleine and the twins had been drugged with sedatives. Whether this revelation was from someone in the PJ team or whether it was a figment of the imagination of 24 Horas - make up your own mind.
It is clear that the scandalous accusations were getting through to the McCanns, given the number of rebuttals stating they were entirely untrue.
Based on what I have seen, the McCann reputation was damaged beyond repair in advance of the publication of Amaral's book, at least within Portugal. Since my recent search was based on a Portuguese topic covered mainly in Portuguese media, I have seen only a limited amount of how these allegations affected the reputation of the McCanns in say, the UK, Ireland, France etc.
AFAIK, the book had little impact in the UK, but if someone has evidence to support a different conclusion, kindly provide it.
On occasion I too have trawled those Portuguese media reports which are still available and with the help of Google translate (although sometimes I am left scratching my head in bewilderment) have managed to get a flavour of the times.
In my opinion many of the outrages had to have their genesis in calculated leaks direct from source within the investigation.
You have said, "It is clear that the scandalous accusations were getting through to the McCanns, given the number of rebuttals stating they were entirely untrue."
That raises the question for me of why it was necessary for the McCanns to do this? What was it about the Concept of Judicial Secrecy that allowed such wicked misinformation to enter the public domain without some effort on the part of the authorities to stem the flow?
As far as the publication of Amaral's book is concerned ... I find it exceedingly odd that the people who contributed to its best selling status were unconcerned with a verdade da questão as outlined by their own judiciary.
Inexplicedly preferring instead a penny dreadful authored by the man who, in the real world, really should have had a lot of questions to answer about aspects of his conduct of the inquiry into Madeleine's disappearance.
I also think the Mccann's reputations had gone before the book was published.DO you seriously doubt that the book and video contributed to a surge in detrimental comments and articles? I have already posted links to dozens of them, will they not do?
Their unimpressive child care arrangements, their courting of the media, their grand tour of Europe, their apparent lack of emotion all went against them.
By September 2007 when they were made arguidos not many people were surprised in my opinion.
The Portuguese investigation did the most damage.
Amaral's book [by the disgraced, sacked, bumbling, drunken, shabby ex detective] had little effect compared to the official investigation.
However. If someone presents a well researched, well documented case showing a surge in detrimental comments and articles following the release of the book and documentary which proves me wrong I am prepared to change my opinion. Reiteration of opinions won't do it.
Not everyone is as good at detecting bullshit when one sees it as Misty and I, some people will believe any old crap they read, some people WANT to believe any old crap they read. If only half the world believed it, that's still a lot of harm!.
In case anyone had forgotten the publicity generated by Amaral's book - was it not published to coincide with the McCanns being cleared as arguidos and the case archived also? So whilst the archiving report clearly stated a lack of evidence, at the same time the ex-cop is promoting a book which claims to be full of it. But, of course, no harm done, eh?
http://www.mccannfiles.com/id131.html
http://www.mccannfiles.com/id164.html
http://www.mccannfiles.com/id164.html
http://www.mccannfiles.com/id241.html
http://www.mccannfiles.com/id180.html
Misinformation entered the press in the UK as well as Portugal, and it didn't all come from the PJ.
On occasion I too have trawled those Portuguese media reports which are still available and with the help of Google translate (although sometimes I am left scratching my head in bewilderment) have managed to get a flavour of the times.
In my opinion many of the outrages had to have their genesis in calculated leaks direct from source within the investigation.
You have said, "It is clear that the scandalous accusations were getting through to the McCanns, given the number of rebuttals stating they were entirely untrue."
That raises the question for me of why it was necessary for the McCanns to do this? What was it about the Concept of Judicial Secrecy that allowed such wicked misinformation to enter the public domain without some effort on the part of the authorities to stem the flow?
As far as the publication of Amaral's book is concerned ... I find it exceedingly odd that the people who contributed to its best selling status were unconcerned with a verdade da questão as outlined by their own judiciary.
Inexplicedly preferring instead a penny dreadful authored by the man who, in the real world, really should have had a lot of questions to answer about aspects of his conduct of the inquiry into Madeleine's disappearance.
I have read a selection of the links. A lot are from Portuguese newspapers. The reports from UK newspapers didn't report it favourably at all. British people were told that the 'sacked' police officer was writing a disgraceful book attacking poor distraught Kate and Gerry who were going to sue him immediately it was released.Oh really? And there was me being given to believe by some "sceptics" that "most" people didn't believe a word the McCanns say and proof of this can be found in the comments pages under each article. Guess it depends on your point of view and what point you are trying to win at the time.
Only those who already had doubts were likely to be interested in what he had to say therefore. Most people would either be disinterested or indignant on the McCann's behalf.
Oh really? And there was me being given to believe by some "sceptics" that "most" people didn't believe a word the McCanns say and proof of this can be found in the comments pages under each article. Guess it depends on your point of view and what point you are trying to win at the time.
Question: is it reputation-enhancing or reputation ruining to have an article published on the front page of a paper, all about a book written by an ex-cop claiming that you have hidden your child's body? What if the article mentions the fact that the author was sacked and disgraced, does that completely wipe out any damage caused by the lurid headlines and article in the first place?If you have the article in full, or a link to it, please post it and I'll be happy to answer your question.
"True Lies" of Maddie's Parents - Sun Headline.
The appeal will have absolutely no effect on the ongoing enquiry, just like the preceding rulings and do you really think anything printed in a British tabloid could have any effect on an appeal that will be judged on a point of Portuguese law?
If you have the article in full, or a link to it, please post it and I'll be happy to answer your question.My question was hypothetical (yes I know, you don't like those). The headline was real, available on one of the links I posted earlier. The question I posed however doesn't really need much in depth study to answer, I don't think.
The manner in which you have posted immediately raises some queries. 'True Lies'? Could the Sun not translate 'A Verdade da Mentira'?
The author was sacked? When he had resigned?
Disgraced? I'd need to see the article to know what The Sun is rabbiting on about there.
As far as Portuguese law is concerned, it doesn't seem to know which side of the fence is the correct side to be. There are, however, a few ways in which British tabloid reports could hypothetically influence the appeal.
You think the Supreme Court judges would be influenced by advice from the UK media on how to interpret Portuguese law? I think you are utterly and completely mistaken.
No, I don't. But, hypothetically, I do think they'd be influenced if stories were published saying judges in the lower/appeal court had been leaned on.
Are you accusing someone of something? Unless you can back it up I think you should stop now.
All I have seen is a report that the McCann's lawyer objected to one of the judges [unsuccessfully].
http://portugalresident.com/appeal-court-judges-reject-mccanns-%E2%80%98libel-win%E2%80%99
There was a pr company that got an award for turning around the negative uk media stories on the mccanns in sept 07
Proof that the uk had negative media stories a year before the book tht required the services and payment of this co
Cant find the link now but its around
Ah found itWould the McCannfiles.com be biased against the McCanns?
http://www.mccannfiles.com/id275.html
Through their carefully orchestrated use of the media, the McCanns' campaign to 'find Madeleine' has drawn in the Pope, Oprah Winfrey, politicians in the UK and Europe, and a host of TV and sporting celebrities.
As far as Portuguese law is concerned, it doesn't seem to know which side of the fence is the correct side to be. There are, however, a few ways in which British tabloid reports could hypothetically influence the appeal.
The only appeal allowed is on a point of law. How can a UK tabloid possible influence that ?They could write about the points of law that weren't followed in this case.
Would the McCannfiles.com be biased against the McCanns?
I don't know exactly but reading their homepage I tend to think so.
It seems to have slight negative view of the McCanns.
They could write about the points of law that weren't followed in this case.
Missing statements, Missing data, insufficient statements from the staff looking after Madeleine, lack of sufficient statements from Kate, incorrect interpretation of the scientific results, setting up ruses to trap witnesses into making false confessions. Writing books in Police time and calling it his own. Allowing those with a vested interest to become translators.
Did you not notice the word "hypothetically" (a word much used by those who doubt the legitimacy of the McCann Fund but have no problems with the other one) used in an example of how the media may influence the Supreme Court ruling?
Your post;
post #316
hypothetically, I do think they'd be influenced if stories were published saying judges in the lower/appeal court had been leaned on.
So you just invented that idea? How strange. Well, as there's nothing to suggest that they were there's unlikely to be any such story published.
Even if there was, the Supreme Court is examining the legal arguments of the two previous hearings. Whichever legal arguments are, in their opinion, correct, will be upheld. So 'leaned on' or not, convincing legal arguments were still required.
I gave a hypothetical example of how the Supreme Court may be influenced by stories about judges in cases they are asked to examine. Of course, that's assuming a case makes court in the first place.......
http://portugalresident.com/former-judge-who-falsified-59-trial-results-walks-free
In the Ana Saltao (criminal) trial, she was cleared by the lower court of murder. The Appeal Court overturned that decision & sentenced her to 17 years without fresh evidence or re-trial. The Supreme Court recently overturned the Appeal Court's decision & ordered a complete retrial in a lower court.
http://www.tvi24.iol.pt/sociedade/tribunal-de-coimbra/julgamento-da-inspetora-da-pj-ana-saltao-vai-ser-repetido
So, back to my original statement that even Portuguese law cannot decide which side of the fence is the correct one - also previously reflected in the book-banning saga.
There are procedures in English law to do similar, so what is the problem ?
Portuguese law is not the same as English law, that's the problem. If it was, then the McCanns would have been successful in their claim a long time ago, irrespective of any Appeal Court.It's not the problem. It's reality. The book was published in Portugal, and the case was brought before a Portuguese court.
It's not the problem. It's reality. The book was published in Portugal, and the case was brought before a Portuguese court.
So Portuguese law applies.
If the McCanns wanted English law to apply, they should have raised the action in an English court. As to whether an English court would have heard it and, if so, where that would have got them ...... sheer speculation.
Does an English court have the right to freeze the assets of a Portuguese citizen residing in Portugal re an incident occurring in Portugal?
I gave a hypothetical example of how the Supreme Court may be influenced by stories about judges in cases they are asked to examine. Of course, that's assuming a case makes court in the first place.......
http://portugalresident.com/former-judge-who-falsified-59-trial-results-walks-free
In the Ana Saltao (criminal) trial, she was cleared by the lower court of murder. The Appeal Court overturned that decision & sentenced her to 17 years without fresh evidence or re-trial. The Supreme Court recently overturned the Appeal Court's decision & ordered a complete retrial in a lower court.
http://www.tvi24.iol.pt/sociedade/tribunal-de-coimbra/julgamento-da-inspetora-da-pj-ana-saltao-vai-ser-repetido
So, back to my original statement that even Portuguese law cannot decide which side of the fence is the correct one - also previously reflected in the book-banning saga.
Portuguese law is not the same as English law, that's the problem. If it was, then the McCanns would have been successful in their claim a long time ago, irrespective of any Appeal Court.
Portuguese law is not the same as English law, that's the problem. If it was, then the McCanns would have been successful in their claim a long time ago, irrespective of any Appeal Court.
Is right, the (recent) innovation of the defence of 'honest comment' (to respondents in a libel suit) notwithstanding.
Should every other country in the world adopt the English common law system? I assume that's what you think is the best legal system in the world?
Most European countries have a civil law system, similar to that of Portugal.
That makes the English legal system out of step with the rest of Europe in my opinion.
English defamation law has been criticised by the ECHR, particularly for the size of the awards made. It has also attracted 'libel tourists' looking for large payouts.
Yes, I don't say that English libel law is perfect, far from it!
But I do think that its basic precept that what is said, written or (in other ways communicated) must, in essence (not necessarily in every fine detail) be truthful and capable of being demonstrably shown to be so (if the statements in dispute lower reputation) is sound.
That simply doesn't seem to apply in Portuguese libel law.
i.e. The Portuguese Court system doesn't bow down and believe everything the Mccanns have said. 8)--))
They just believe everything Amaral has said, even though the majority of it is contradicted by what's written in the files.
i.e. The Portuguese Court system doesn't bow down and believe everything the Mccanns have said. 8)--))
Let's see.
The second (joint Anglo-Portuguese investigation) holds out hope (still) of finding Madeleine alive!
Amaral claims in his book that Madeleine is definitely dead, that her parents hid their (dead) daughter's body and launched a (fraudulent) fund in their (dead) daughter's name.
And Amaral is not guilty of libel?
How does that work?
Facts;
There is no joint investigation.
Amaral said IF the parents were involved THEN the Fund would be fraudulent.
You mean, Scotland Yard are investigating this thing alone?
What do you base that on?
And you appear to have the same comprehension difficulties as Stephen over the difference between kill and murder.
I guess, even if Scotland Yard find Madeleine alive, Amaral will take the libel cheque without blushing.
Let's see.
The second (joint Anglo-Portuguese investigation) holds out hope (still) of finding Madeleine alive!
Amaral claims in his book that Madeleine is definitely dead, that her parents hid their (dead) daughter's body and launched a (fraudulent) fund in their (dead) daughter's name
And Amaral is not guilty of libel?
How does that work?
Facts;
There is no joint investigation.
Amaral said IF the parents were involved THEN the Fund would be fraudulent.
You mean, Scotland Yard are investigating this thing alone?
What do you base that on?
And you appear to have the same comprehension difficulties as Stephen over the difference between kill and murder.
I guess, even if Scotland Yard find Madeleine alive, Amaral will take the libel cheque without blushing.
Haven't you yet reached the understanding that case will be shelved with no evidence of anything worth a grain of salt.There is slight a chance it will be solved before then.
Op Grange Remit
The support and expertise proffered by the Commissioner will be provided by the Homicide & Serious Crime Command - SCD1.
The activity, in the first instance, will be that of an ‘investigative review’. This will entail a review of the whole of the investigation(s) which have been conducted in to the circumstances of Madeleine McCann’s disappearance.
The focus of the review will be of the material held by three main stakeholders (and in the following order of primacy);
The Portuguese Law Enforcement agencies.
UK Law Enforcement agencies,
Other private investigative agencies/staff and organisations.
The investigative review is intended to collate, record and analyse what has gone before.
It is to examine the case and seek to determine, (as if the abduction occurred in the UK) what additional, new investigative approaches we would take and which can assist the Portuguese authorities in progressing the matter. Whilst ordinarily a review has no investigative remit whatsoever- the scale and extent of this enquiry cannot permit for such an approach. It will take too long to progress to any “action stage” if activity is given wholly and solely to a review process.
The ‘investigative review’ will be conducted with transparency, openness and thoroughness.
The work will be overseen through the Gold Group management structure, which will also manage the central relationships with other key stakeholders and provide continuing oversight and direction to the investigative remit.
End
There is a difference between two separate investigations and a joint investigation.
To answer your point about kill and murder I refer you to what the first judge said in the damages trial;
it is not unreasonable that the plaintiffs would feel badly about being considered responsible for hiding the body and staging an abduction - not, the Judge stresses, about being responsible for their daughter's death, as is commonly, and mistakenly, believed.
http://miscarriageofjustice.co/index.php?topic=5931.0
So the judge said they had been accused of neither
Any money Amaral receives if he is cleared will be his own money being returned to him, no-one else's.
Think you might be confusing what the judge said with what Anne Guides said the judge said.
According to Anne Guides, the judge said the book had not harmed the search for Madeleine.
The judge actually said the book had not harmed the investigation into Madeleine's disappearance (undeniably true; the book was published after the investigation was shelved).
A sense of deja vu springs to mind.
Meanwhile would any of the McCann supporters care to comment on what happens if the Mccanns fail in the Supreme Court ?
A sense of deja vu springs to mind.
Meanwhile would any of the McCann supporters care to comment on what happens if the Mccanns fail in the Supreme Court ?
GA will be able to pay off some of his debts and the McCanns will take the issue to the ECHR.
QuoteOp Grange Remit
The support and expertise proffered by the Commissioner will be provided by the Homicide & Serious Crime Command - SCD1.
The activity, in the first instance, will be that of an ‘investigative review’. This will entail a review of the whole of the investigation(s) which have been conducted in to the circumstances of Madeleine McCann’s disappearance.
The focus of the review will be of the material held by three main stakeholders (and in the following order of primacy);
The Portuguese Law Enforcement agencies.
UK Law Enforcement agencies,
Other private investigative agencies/staff and organisations.
The investigative review is intended to collate, record and analyse what has gone before.
It is to examine the case and seek to determine, (as if the abduction occurred in the UK) what additional, new investigative approaches we would take and which can assist the Portuguese authorities in progressing the matter. Whilst ordinarily a review has no investigative remit whatsoever- the scale and extent of this enquiry cannot permit for such an approach. It will take too long to progress to any “action stage” if activity is given wholly and solely to a review process.
The ‘investigative review’ will be conducted with transparency, openness and thoroughness.
The work will be overseen through the Gold Group management structure, which will also manage the central relationships with other key stakeholders and provide continuing oversight and direction to the investigative remit.
End
How about 12 months as a starting point?
How about 12 months as a starting point?How about a rolling 12 months, to save us from doing extensions?
How can anyone write a book of untruths (also lies, if Amaral knew them to be untrue) that lower reputation and not be guilty of libel?Read the judgement. It's all there.
As the first-instance judge said, the McCanns are innocent.
Amaral accuses them of some quite serious crimes.
Almost all Amaral's accusations are demonstrably untrue.
The McCanns' reputations have been unjustly shreded by (demonstrably proven) untruths (that also lower reputation).
So on what basis can Amaral declare these untruths (that lower reputation) in a book sold in tens or hundreds of thousands across countries of Europe and not be held accountable for those untruths?
How does it work that Amaral can trash reputations without let or hindrance and simply profit from it?
Read the judgement. It's all there.
That way the forum can avoid groundhog day on how the judge arrived at the verdict.
Read the judgement. It's all there.
That way the forum can avoid groundhog day on how the judge arrived at the verdict.
I have read the judgement.
It seems to boil down to that because Amaral quit the PJ before he wrote his book (and there is no requirement on ex-PJ Officers to keep their mouths shut about cases they have been involved in) and because Kate wrote her book, Amaral can spout any, otherwise libellous untruths he likes (also lies, if he knew them to be untrue), call it a "thesis" and rake in huge profits (from his "thesis" of untruths).
What huge profits ?
Second, and AGAIN, what about any fees given to the Mccanns, not in the fund ?
so what evidence led the pj to believe maddie died in the apartment...there was none...what apigs ear they made of the whole thing
#
I don't know what point ferryman was making by quoting Amaral's book, I was just demonstrating that the book's conclusions pretty much matched the conclusions reached by the investigation up until he was taken off the case.
The book explains why the investigation came to those conclusions. The conclusions may be wrong, but as no-one knows they are just as valid as the conclusions arrived at and publicised as fact by the McCanns.
As the Appeal Court pointed out; by publicising their theory [not proved to be factual] they opened the door to other, competing, theories being proposed and publicised.
I don't know what point ferryman was making by quoting Amaral's book, I was just demonstrating that the book's conclusions pretty much matched the conclusions reached by the investigation up until he was taken off the case.
The book explains why the investigation came to those conclusions. The conclusions may be wrong, but as no-one knows they are just as valid as the conclusions arrived at and publicised as fact by the McCanns.
As the Appeal Court pointed out; by publicising their theory [not proved to be factual] they opened the door to other, competing, theories being proposed and publicised.
Key part emphasised.
Is Amaral allowed to get away with failure to reflect how the picture changed as the investigation progressed (post-Amaral)?
By English law, he certainly wouldn't.
The appeal-court ruling tends to suggest that, by Portuguese law he does/can.
I think another point is that the bulk of the trial was conducted by written submissions (which we just haven't seen).
The problem with that is that judgements are subjective. I've been misunderstood myself often enough to know that one's words can be misinterpreted. Where one person sees a sneaky accusation another may not.Even so we would still respect your opinion. Have you read the book?
Even so we would still respect your opinion. Have you read the book?
Bits of it. Bits of Kate McCann's book. I found both quite boring, actually. Kate's is more interesting because she only gave two fairly sparse statements. I've learned things from hers, but Amaral's has no new facts.I have downloaded his book but I haven't read it yet.
The problem with that is that judgements are subjective. I've been misunderstood myself often enough to know that one's words can be misinterpreted. Where one person sees a sneaky accusation another may not.
I have no reason whatsoever to believe that the Supreme Court will be considering dog alerts, the methodology of the handler, the Jersey case, or the decomposition of bone v coconut v wood.
So cites re relevance or watch dog-related posts get deleted.
I have no reason whatsoever to believe that the Supreme Court will be considering dog alerts, the methodology of the handler, the Jersey case, or the decomposition of bone v coconut v wood.
So cites re relevance or watch dog-related posts get deleted.
As I recall, at the last knockings of the trial, Dr G McCann tried to give testimony about the unreliability of dog alerts only to be given the "bums rush" by the learned lady judge.
Precisely.I can see why for people take the intelligence and turn it into an inference. And the truth be known you do too.
It had NOTHING to do with the Mccanns case.
However, it highlighted once again how much it concerns the Mccanns.
Would Amaral, without blushing, accept a libel cheque if Operation Grange finds Madeleine alive?
I've asked my question on repeated occasions to you and others without a reply.
Silence is golden.
You cannot criticise Amaral, if the Mccanns have done exactly the same, CAN YOU.
PERSONALLY, anyone , including people, such as Summers and Swan, should not make money from a missing child, and I have said that several times on this forum before.
i have been seeing that police now think that BEN was NOT abducted imo it proves police may think that about maddie too
I agree.
Didn't one member of SY say to the effect, that abduction may not be their only line of thinking on this case.
Yes I quoted that recently and provided the cite.
Please bear in mind that the topic of the thread is ...The Supreme Court in Portugal will shortly decide the McCann v Amaral damages case.
A joint enquiry (that holds out, at the very least, hope of finding Madeleine alive) should mean that the Amaral has (marginally less) than a cat in hell's chance of winning the libel trial (when he accuses the McCanns of hiding her body and profiting from her death).
The decision is based on Portuguese Law, not 'the world according to ferryman'.
P.S. It isn't Amaral's appeal, it's the Mccanns.
As I recall, at the last knockings of the trial, Dr G McCann tried to give testimony about the unreliability of dog alerts only to be given the "bums rush" by the learned lady judge.What was the learned ladies name? Anyone know?
You appear to have failed to highlight words remotely resembling "Joint Anglo / Portuguese Inquiry"
Perhaps you would like to have another try?
A bit like PIN numbers and passwords ; three wrong answers and it blows a raspberry at you.
It WAS Amarals appeal and Ferryman made that plain by saying Amarals successful appeal
Thread topic: let's hope the sanity and common sense (of the verdict of the first-instance judge) is restored.
No, the appeal judges got it right.
They went by the law in reversing the main decision.
You also seem to forget how many failures the Mccanns had in the initial judgement.
I tend to remember that most of what we see on-line is Anne Guide's version of events.
In particular, Anne Guides said that it was not proved that the book harmed the search for Madeleine, when she (the judge!) actually said that the book had not harmed the investigation into Madeleine's disappearance (quite different).
I tend to remember that most of what we see on-line is Anne Guide's version of events.She actually said "not proved", not that it definitely hadn't harmed the investigation.
In particular, Anne Guides said that it was not proved that the book harmed the search for Madeleine, when she (the judge!) actually said that the book had not harmed the investigation into Madeleine's disappearance (quite different).
She actually said "not proved", not that it definitely hadn't harmed the investigation.
She actually said "not proved", not that it definitely hadn't harmed the investigation.
Key point being that the book was published after the investigation was shelved ....
Anne Guide's version: No proof the book harmed the search for Madeleine
(Quite different and not what the judge said).
Key point being that the book was published after the investigation was shelved ....
Anne Guide's version: No proof the book harmed the search for Madeleine
(Quite different and not what the judge said).
The book didn't harm the investigation because it was published after the investigation was shelved.
The judge didn't comment on the search for Madeleine (which, of course, extends to the present day) ....
The book didn't harm the investigation because it was published after the investigation was shelved.
The judge didn't comment on the search for Madeleine (which, of course, extends to the present day) ....
I've just finished reading the online version of Amaral's book and I was wondering why the McCanns found it defamatory. Amaral is obviously confused and factually wrong about many things. If the judges see things like I do they should split the first award in half. For Amaral's book was to help find Madeleine some of the profits should go toward the Find Madeleine fund as a goodwill gesture.
This is a Court Order. Enforced goodwill.
I don't think there is any goodwill left in this saga.
This is a Court Order. Enforced goodwill.
I've just finished reading the online version of Amaral's book and I was wondering why the McCanns found it defamatory. Amaral is obviously confused and factually wrong about many things. If the judges see things like I do they should split the first award in half. For Amaral's book was to help find Madeleine some of the profits should go toward the Find Madeleine fund as a goodwill gesture.
Why would someone who'd clearly "misunderstood" so many aspects, but who has an ego /sense of entitlement / disgruntlement / honour / financial stakes the size of the Michelin Man deliberately sit on a pin?Was that original Carana? It was rather good. Thanks for the entertainment. 8@??)(
It's a curious race, between those who want the Supreme Court to bring down the dice (one way or the other) in the libel trial, and those who want Operation Grange to (finally) reveal the mystery of what happened to Madeleine and bring perpetrators to book.
Dunno.
It'll be a bit odd if Operation Grange bring third-parties (not remotely the McCanns or any of their friends) to book for crime(s) against Madeleine, and the Portuguese Supreme Court finds Amaral is entitled to express a view contrary to that of the Prosecutors in the (archived) process.
Not sure what to think.
Actually, I am sure what to think ....
It's a curious race, between those who want the Supreme Court to bring down the dice (one way or the other) in the libel trial, and those who want Operation Grange to (finally) reveal the mystery of what happened to Madeleine and bring perpetrators to book.
Dunno.
It'll be a bit odd if Operation Grange bring third-parties (not remotely the McCanns or any of their friends) to book for crime(s) against Madeleine, and the Portuguese Supreme Court finds Amaral is entitled to express a view contrary to that of the Prosecutors in the (archived) process.
Not sure what to think.
Actually, I am sure what to think ....
Well, you know i know every tom dick and harry knows that is not ever going to happen now so why worry about it vis a vis a legal case, have a cigar insteadWell I am not called tom dick or harry ... and I think SY know a lot more about it than you could ever dream
Well I am not called tom dick or harry ... and I think SY know a lot more about it than you could ever dream
It's a curious race, between those who want the Supreme Court to bring down the dice (one way or the other) in the libel trial, and those who want Operation Grange to (finally) reveal the mystery of what happened to Madeleine and bring perpetrators to book.
Dunno.
It'll be a bit odd if Operation Grange bring third-parties (not remotely the McCanns or any of their friends) to book for crime(s) against Madeleine, and the Portuguese Supreme Court finds Amaral is entitled to express a view contrary to that of the Prosecutors in the (archived) process.
Not sure what to think.
Actually, I am sure what to think ....
The Supreme Court will look incredibly silly if Operation Grange, even without solving the mystery, makes abundantly plain neither the McCanns nor their friends have any case to answer, yet it (the Supreme Court) finds Amaral's book transgresses no libel laws ....
Why the Supreme Court in Portugal should care about the opinions of a foreign police force escapes me.
I imagine the Portuguese Supreme Court will trump anything SY might have to say, particularly in Portugal.
Why the Supreme Court in Portugal should care about the opinions of a foreign police force escapes me.
I'm still puzzling over this, said after the Appeal Court overturned the first judgement;
The panel’s decision, Duarte told the Mail, was “an appreciation of the law and not the facts”.
http://portugalresident.com/appeal-court-judges-reject-mccanns-%E2%80%98libel-win%E2%80%99
The Supreme Court doesn't normally deal with facts either;
The Supreme Court of Justice seats in Lisbon and has jurisdiction over all the national territory.
As a rule, it only hears or determines on matter of law but under no circumstances on factual matters.
http://www.dgpj.mj.pt/sections/english-version/strategic-planning/annexes/the-portuguese-judicial/the-portuguese-judicial/
In my opinion, therefore, the court will be examining the law as used by the judge of the first instance to support her ruling. If it agrees with the Appeal Court that Amaral was entitled to 'a large and full freedom of expression' then the McCann's appeal will be dismissed.
This is how the judge used the law to rule in favour of the McCann couple;
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.
Having been in charge of that investigation as a member of the Judicial Police, the defendant Goncalo Amaral, although retired on 1st July 2008, did not enjoy, on the following July 24, in respect of the results of the criminal investigation released on the 21st of the same month and year, a large and full freedom of expression. This freedom was conditioned by the functions he had, functions that imposed him special duties that traverse the status of retirement, including the duty of reserve.
This form of resolving the conflict between the rights reveals the illegality of the conduct of the defendant Goncalo Amaral in respect of the effects of article 484 of the Civil Code.
http://miscarriageofjustice.co/index.php?topic=6307.0
In summary, although Amaral breached judicial secrecy to get his book published and in the shops so soon after the archiving dispatch, he quit the PJ and Portugal does not impose a duty on civilians (even ex-police officers) to keep stm about cases they have been involved in.
That, combined predominantly with Kate's book, brings about a level playing-field where there is effective annulment of the usual rules of libel, and no-one can be held legally accountable for anything they write or otherwise introduce into the public domain.
That, at least, is how I understand it ...
According to Shining, every calumny uttered against Madeleine's parents by Goncalo Amaral is widely believed in Portugal.
In the part of the world from which Madeleine disappeared and where she may very well be living ... no-one is looking for her because they believe the book, the documentary all backed up by the celebrity TV appearances ... and that is considered appropriate?
IIRC the court deemed that it was not proven that the book damaged the search. Just as the McCanns had no way of quantifying the effects of the book, whatever they were, - the court had the same problem themselves.
The only way that could be established was to question every person who bought and read the book. Obviously that was an impossible task.
AIMHO
According to Shining, every calumny uttered against Madeleine's parents by Goncalo Amaral is widely believed in Portugal.
In the part of the world from which Madeleine disappeared and where she may very well be living ... no-one is looking for her because they believe the book, the documentary all backed up by the celebrity TV appearances ... and that is considered appropriate?
Not quite (if you are referring to the first-instance judgement)?
She said there was no evidence the book damaged the investigation.
Jeez, how the legal profession drag these things out. Still, better than having a quick, but ill-considered verdict.
it's not a hearing, the STJ judges are just examining the McCann's request for review of the Appeal Court decision. They can totally or partly grant a review or reject it or even defer their decision for further analysis. They basically have to decide whether the interpretation of the law has been appropriate. They are not judging the matter itself.
it could also be today
lets hope its regected ......this is as far as maddie will get to justice ....and G A
it's not a hearing, the STJ judges are just examining the McCann's request for review of the Appeal Court decision. They can totally or partly grant a review or reject it or even defer their decision for further analysis. They basically have to decide whether the interpretation of the law has been appropriate. They are not judging the matter itself.
it could also be today
lets hope its regected ......this is as far as maddie will get to justice ....and G A