Madeleine McCann's parents win €500k in damages against former police chief.

[stephen25000]

It's not just Amaral who has had a donation fund closed by GoFundMe. Ms. Baulch may have jumped the gun a little. Certainly other supporters are recommending donations be made into that private bank account which attracts no admin fees (or protection for suckers).
https://uk.news.yahoo.com/anti-gay-bakers-told-pay-135-000-couple-182021820.html?bcmt_s=m#QF2T9yl
*snipped*
 The Kleins, who closed their store in September 2013 amid all the negative publicity and now operate it from their home, say the ruling could bankrupt their family of seven.

A GoFundMe page raised more than $100,000 for them before it was shut down on Friday.

The website said it does not allow donations for anyone found to be in violation of the law.

"Satan's really at work," the Kleins said on their Facebook page.

They urged supporters to donate instead through the website of Samaritan's Purse, a Christian aid group.

An Indiana pizzeria raised more than $840,000 through GoFundMe after a backlash when its owners made anti-gay comments.

But GoFundMe said the parlour had not broken that state's law.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

You will be pleased to here the funding is reopened for Amaral.

[Mr Gray]

The British press and at least one British-run newspaper in Portugal have used the terms defamation and libel but we have to be careful to distinguish the adjective from the noun.  In the strictest Portuguese legal sense the case was not one of defamation or libel per se but merely a claim for damages representing a breach of two former arguido's rights to be considered innocent until proven guilty.

from the judgement....Correspondingly, the right to good name and reputation is essentially in the person not be offended or injured in his honor,

that's defamation...plain and simple

[John]

It is worth noting from the judgement that the case is referred to as an acção declarativa or declarative action.


Speak
Clear All
KATE MARIE HEALY MACCANN and GERALD PATRICK MACCANN, married, doctors, for itself and on behalf of their minor children, BETH MADEILENE MACCANN, SEAN MICHAEL MACCANN and AMELIE EVE MACCANN, residents in Orchard House, 5, The Crescent, United Kingdom;
Brought this declarative action in the form of common process (originally under the ordinary form), against,
GONÇALO DE SOUSA AMARAL, married, living in Cerro Azul Urbanization, lot 53, Quelfes, Olhão.

KATE MARIE HEALY MACCANN e GERALD PATRICK MACCANN, casados, médicos, por si e em representação dos seus filhos menores, MADEILENE BETH MACCANN, SEAN MICHAEL MACCANN e AMELIE EVE MACCANN, residentes em Orchard House, 5, The Crescent, Reino Unido;
Intentaram a presente acção declarativa, sob a forma comum de processo (originalmente, sob a forma ordinária), contra,
GONÇALO DE SOUSA AMARAL, casado, residente na Urbanização Cerro Azul, lote 53, Quelfes, Olhão.

[stephen25000]

from the judgement....Correspondingly, the right to good name and reputation is essentially in the person not be offended or injured in his honor,

that's defamation...plain and simple

They have defamed themselves through their actions in leaving three young children effectively by themselves, on successive evenings.

If they had shown responsibility and intelligence, none of this would have been necessary.

Now comes the appeals court, the supreme court, and followed if needed by the European Court of Human Rights, which has a backlog of nearly 70,000 cases.  Apparently the same European Court gave 896 judgements last year. Looks like the mccanns have a long wait to look forward to, and ever increasing legal costs.

Shame. &%&£(+

[jassi]

I believe we should go by the words of the judgement - subject to translation errors of course, rather than 'interpretations'

[misty]

You will be pleased to here the funding is reopened for Amaral.

Yes, I know. Hence my reference to Ms. Baulch. I anticipate that this same means of donating will also be shut down, for the same reasons as before.
I am pleased that people whose futile attempts to support a criminal ex-cop are prepared to thrown their own good money after bad.

[Mr Gray]

I believe we should go by the words of the judgement - subject to translation errors of course, rather than 'interpretations'

I'm quoting the words of the judgement....the judge speaks of the right to a good name..amaral made an offense against that...John and others want to pretend that's not defamation..it is

[stephen25000]

Yes, I know. Hence my reference to Ms. Baulch. I anticipate that this same means of donating will also be shut down, for the same reasons as before.
I am pleased that people whose futile attempts to support a criminal ex-cop are prepared to thrown their own good money after bad.

It is up to those who wish to donate if they wish.

Those who have tried to stop it are clearly die hard mccann supporters, with their twisted hatred of Amaral.

[Brietta]

It is up to those who wish to donate if they wish.

Those who have tried to stop it are clearly die hard mccann supporters, with their twisted hatred of Amaral.

I've not seen any members of this forum objecting to people putting their money where their mouths are ... in fact I think the amount of the donation should be commensurate with the size of the mouth ... this is a free country and they can do with their moneys what they will.

I do find it rather sad that the wheels of the machine are grinding throughout twitter and the internet spewing out bile on Madeleine's family because the Portuguese Courts have made an award to them in recognition of the damage they have suffered.

I think the appeal will be settled reasonably quickly ... then it will be interesting to see if Portuguese Justice will progress the outrages the system suffered at the hands of the appellant.

[OxfordBloo]

And they would have to prove it.

Going on recent cases where police have shared information with, for instance, the News of the World, it would not be that difficult to prove it. But that was only an attempt at explanation of how it would have been treated here. The judge quite clearly explains that that is one of the two roots of the finding, that and failure to maintain their innocence.

[John]

I'm quoting the words of the judgement....the judge speaks of the right to a good name..amaral made an offense against that...John and others want to pretend that's not defamation..it is

Not in Portugal it isn't and the last time I looked Lisbon was in Portugal!   As already pointed out by me yesterday and others today, the words libel and defamation (difamação) do not appear once in the judgement.

[OxfordBloo]

I'm quoting the words of the judgement....the judge speaks of the right to a good name..amaral made an offense against that...John and others want to pretend that's not defamation..it is

To remove any doubt could you please quote the exact words you are claiming the judge said. I ask for this because part of the judgement is a detailed description of the difference between defamation by a citizen and misuse of information by a police officer.

[OxfordBloo]

Thank You.  Many of us have wondered about this but were unable to find any confirmation.

Can you explain why Amaral wasn't arrested?

In England we have a system of common law which supports a clear distinction between civil and criminal law. This has developed over the centuries as before 1400 the only law was the King's law- all disputes whether criminal in nature or civil were to do with the King's Peace. Gradually the concept of civil law evolved where individuals could hold other individuals accountable through the courts without it being a matter of state.

In countries based on Roman Law there is less distinction between civil and criminal matters and particular actions may fall on what to us seems the 'wrong' side of the civil- criminal divide which is in any case less clear in Roman Law domains. In this case rather than misconduct in a public office being a crime, it is a tort and thus a civil matter. Amaral's actions were thus not arrestable but a tort. The tort was not libel but causing distress to another person in an unlawful manner. The response to this is damages rather than punishment.

[Eleanor]

In England we have a system of common law which supports a clear distinction between civil and criminal law. This has developed over the centuries as before 1400 the only law was the King's law- all disputes whether criminal in nature or civil were to do with the King's Peace. Gradually the concept of civil law evolved where individuals could hold other individuals accountable through the courts without it being a matter of state.

In countries based on Roman Law there is less distinction between civil and criminal matters and particular actions may fall on what to us seems the 'wrong' side of the civil- criminal divide which is in any case less clear in Roman Law domains. In this case rather than misconduct in a public office being a crime, it is a tort and thus a civil matter. Amaral's actions were thus not arrestable but a tort. The tort was not libel but causing distress to another person in an unlawful manner. The response to this is damages rather than punishment.

I don't suppose you could explain what A Tort is in this instance, could you?

Thanks again.

[Angelo222]

Its about time the Portuguese police pursued those involved in the Correia/Metodo 3 affair because we all know who was really behind it.  They could start with attempting to obstruct justice, interfering with a criminal investigation, attempting to pervert the course of justice and bribery of public officials.