The Supreme Court in Portugal will shortly decide the McCann v Amaral damages case.

[Robittybob1]

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. 

[Benice]

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.

What a strange reason for not reading any book - but Amaral's book in particular - as it's contents are the  whole reason for why the case was brought in the first place.     Sorry G - you've lost me.   I don't get it.

I would have thought anyone interested in the case would automatically want to read the book to see for themselves why the McCanns found it so unacceptable.

 

[stephen25000]

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.

[ShiningInLuz]

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.

[ferryman]

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 believe the bulk of the trial consisted of legal submissions, which we don't see.

[Alice Purjorick]

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.

[stephen25000]

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.

It had NOTHING  to do with the Mccanns case.

However, it highlighted once again how much it concerns the Mccanns.

[Robittybob1]

Precisely.

It had NOTHING  to do with the Mccanns case.

However, it highlighted once again how much it concerns the Mccanns.

I can see why for people take the intelligence and turn it into an inference.  And the truth be known you do too.

[ferryman]

Would Amaral, without blushing, accept a libel cheque if Operation Grange finds Madeleine alive?

[stephen25000]

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.

[carlymichelle]

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 

[stephen25000]

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.

[slartibartfast]

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.

[stephen25000]

Yes I quoted that recently and provided the cite.

Thank you for doing so.

It would seem though, that what was said by a member of SY at the time hasn't sunk in with some people.

[ferryman]

And still no answer to my question.

If Operation Grange do find Madeleine alive will Amaral accept his libel cheque without blushing?