Should the €500k plus interest have been confiscated by the State?

[Alice Purjorick]

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"?

[Alfred R Jones]

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? 

[Carana]

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.

[Eleanor]

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.

[Alice Purjorick]

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.

[Miss Taken Identity]

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!

[G-Unit]

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?

[Carana]

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.

[Alfred R Jones]

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.

[G-Unit]

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.

[Carana]

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?

[Mr Gray]

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

[G-Unit]

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.

[Carana]

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.

[Carana]

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?