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

[Carana]

I'm trying to sum it up, please correct me if I'm wrong. The book did not harm the search or hurt the children. It did hurt the parents, but this wouldn't have led to a monetary award had Amaral been a private citizen. The reason there was an award is because he used material gathered during his employment as a police officer, which he should not have done. Additionally, by declaring them guilty of a crime he ignored the duty of those involved in the judicial process to assume the innocence of suspects.

I'm not sure that she said that it DIDN'T harm the search, but there was no evidence to prove that it had.

- Paiva had said words to the effect that the book didn't stop him collecting information (even though his vertical filing may have been influenced by Amaral's approach to the investigation, but not as a direct consequence of the book)

- It wasn't possible to quantify the extent of any change in public interest in the case. Perhaps if there had been the equivalent of a Mori poll taken shortly after publication related directly to the book and later to the "documentary", that might have provided some kind of evidence to take into account.

What's your opinion on that, Oxfordbloo?

[Carana]

Another example of how failure to read correctly leads people down blind alleys. Elsewhere on the internet there is much kerfuffle over the  "Proved Facts" included in the judgement.

Much is being made of phases such as:

"Dogs of the British police "Eddie" and "Keela" detected brands odor of human blood and body in apartment 5a of the Ocean Club [point AR) of undisputed]. 7.Dogs of the British police "Eddie" and "Keela" detected odors of human blood and body in a vehicle rented by the authors Kate McCann and Gerald McCann after the disappearance of Madeleine"

"The minor Madeleine McCann died in the apartment 5A of the Ocean Club resort, on the night of May 3rd of 2007"

" Kate McCann and Gerald McCann are involved in the occultation of the cadaver of their child Madeleine McCann"

"From what was obtained until now, everything points out that the McCann, as self-defence, didn'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."

A more nuanced reading shows that these are not "Proven Facts" in themselves, but the "Proven Fact" is that these statements were made in the previous reports rather than it was a proven fact that they were true. The court accepts that it is a fact that these statements occurin legal documents. Amaral needed this to claim that his book was based on what someone else had written.

So we will have another myth growing up that the Judge in this case accepted that Eddie and Keela reacted, that the McCanns hid the body, yet still found against the McCanns, when all the judge has found is that those statements occurred in another document.

I suspect the post mortem examination on this will go on for days or weeks and become an established factoid.

Agreed. But it raises a question for me. I underestand that the judge didn't want to deal with attempting to establish the truth of the "facts", but couldn't ID have presented a counter submission to show Amaral had simply ignored what Grime and Harrison actually said - i.e., that the alerts (to use that example) had no evidential value in the absence of corroborating forensic results?

I suppose she touched on the subject in a more global way by pointing out that even though "most of the facts" were in the files, the "facts" only represented a portion of the files, and didn't reflect the broader range of facts undere consideration in the conclusions of the AG. (Nor of the final PJ report, for that matter.)

[G-Unit]

I'm not sure that she said that it DIDN'T harm the search, but there was no evidence to prove that it had.

- Paiva had said words to the effect that the book didn't stop him collecting information (even though his vertical filing may have been influenced by Amaral's approach to the investigation, but not as a direct consequence of the book)

- It wasn't possible to quantify the extent of any change in public interest in the case. Perhaps if there had been the equivalent of a Mori poll taken shortly after publication related directly to the book and later to the "documentary", that might have provided some kind of evidence to take into account.

What's your opinion on that, Oxfordbloo?

Interesting reasoning. It reminds me of the statement made by Leicestershire's Assistant Chief Constable. (to paraphrase; the McCanns may be innocent but there's no evidence proving it) 

[Carana]

Interesting reasoning. It reminds me of the statement made by Leicestershire's Assistant Chief Constable. (to paraphrase; the McCanns may be innocent but there's no evidence proving it) 

LP couldn't have said anything else at the time as the McCanns were still technically arguidos.

I don't know whether the situation would have been any different if they had not been, but if the case had been led by LP, the investigation wouldn't have been about to be officially archived.

It was an awkward situation.

[Carana]

Interesting reasoning. It reminds me of the statement made by Leicestershire's Assistant Chief Constable. (to paraphrase; the McCanns may be innocent but there's no evidence proving it) 

That's my understanding of it.

FACTOS NÃO PROVADOS
i) Que por causa das afirmações do réu Gonçalo Amaral no livro, no documentário e na entrevista ao Correio da Manhã, a Polícia Judiciária tivesse deixado de recolher informação e de investigar o desaparecimento de Madeleine MacCann;

n) Que a atenção da comunicação social e das pessoas em geral tivesse diminuído com a publicação do livro do réu Gonçalo Amaral.

[Mr Gray]

That they must return the items as the court has required. They are not culpable for publishing them but Amaral is as he broke the rules regarding confidence and duty.

Only Amaral is required to pay damages. The others must merely pay their share of court fees.

where is the judgement published you are referring to...you seem to have far more information than the judgement posted by alfred

[Eleanor]

True. Thanks to our discussion we'll know what he's appealing against.

Yes.  A belated lesson in Portuguese Law.  Thanks to OxfordBloo.

[Mr Gray]

Interesting reasoning. It reminds me of the statement made by Leicestershire's Assistant Chief Constable. (to paraphrase; the McCanns may be innocent but there's no evidence proving it) 

they don't need to have any evidence to prove it...they are entitled to the presumption of innocence...you should at least understand that by now

[Carana]

However, I take on board Oxfordbloo's comment.

What's "proven" or not "proven" is simply acknowledgement of whatever document either party submitted to substantiate their side of the case that was legally admissible.

At least I think so... Is that correct, Oxfordbloo?

I'm not sure what the case would have been if countering documents had been submitted (e.g., as to my earlier question about Grime / Harrison) or what the Lowe report actually said. 

[carlymichelle]

seee johns new thread GA is  taking it all the  way they may not see  this money fora long time if ever

[OxfordBloo]

I'm not sure that she said that it DIDN'T harm the search, but there was no evidence to prove that it had.

- Paiva had said words to the effect that the book didn't stop him collecting information (even though his vertical filing may have been influenced by Amaral's approach to the investigation, but not as a direct consequence of the book)

- It wasn't possible to quantify the extent of any change in public interest in the case. Perhaps if there had been the equivalent of a Mori poll taken shortly after publication related directly to the book and later to the "documentary", that might have provided some kind of evidence to take into account.

What's your opinion on that, Oxfordbloo?

Agree.

[OxfordBloo]

Agreed. But it raises a question for me. I underestand that the judge didn't want to deal with attempting to establish the truth of the "facts", but couldn't ID have presented a counter submission to show Amaral had simply ignored what Grime and Harrison actually said - i.e., that the alerts (to use that example) had no evidential value in the absence of corroborating forensic results?

I suppose she touched on the subject in a more global way by pointing out that even though "most of the facts" were in the files, the "facts" only represented a portion of the files, and didn't reflect the broader range of facts undere consideration in the conclusions of the AG. (Nor of the final PJ report, for that matter.)

It would have been a waste of time as it did not matter whether or not the book was truthful or full of lies. It was not a defamation case.

Whether Amaral's statements had been gospel truth or devilish lies made no difference.

the only question was- were the McCanns harmed by his unlawful activities.

[OxfordBloo]

where is the judgement published you are referring to...you seem to have far more information than the judgement posted by alfred

I think i posted the link above. I am working from my own word documanet which I have divided into readable sections with marked headings so it is possible to read it and understand it.

[OxfordBloo]

Judgement here:

http://www.eliphashardi.eu/

[OxfordBloo]

However, I take on board Oxfordbloo's comment.

What's "proven" or not "proven" is simply acknowledgement of whatever document either party submitted to substantiate their side of the case that was legally admissible.

At least I think so... Is that correct, Oxfordbloo?

I'm not sure what the case would have been if countering documents had been submitted (e.g., as to my earlier question about Grime / Harrison) or what the Lowe report actually said.

In legal cases there is normally a pack of documents that are agreed by each side and are not going to be argued. That is what the lists is- an acceptance by the Judge that the various documents were as they were stated.

So it is an agreement that "Mr X said Y", not that "Y" was true.