I'm I right in thinking the TM fielded a defence based on hearsay, emotion and oh.... well that's how it was at the time. The few professionals, gave almost non-professional opinions, occasionally outside their expertise, i.e. the consultant \ counsellor who wasn't a psychologist, making psychological assessment etc. And others, rather like the T9 timeline, prompted notes didn't help their cause.
GA team, was more factual and pragmatic and was able to draw conclusions between what was\is official documentation and GAs opinion.
Importantly, GA has demonstrated no malice.
Knowing nothing about the law, either here in the UK or anywhere else. One thing is apparent, the LAW is the law and there exists laid down criteria. Just maybe at this point in time with witnesses not being heard, NO decision made with regard to hearing in person the McCanns or Goncalo Amaral, the judge has sufficient information & documentation within the NEEDS OF THE LAW, to make a decision.
The call for paperwork has been peppered throughout this hearing & the judgement has to show it's evidence and well as deliver a verdict.
But it is indeed still very puzzling.
Again thanks to everyone who have cared to share.