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

[Eleanor]

Please let it be soon.  And then we will have something to talk about, instead of the largely unadulterated rubbish going on at the moment.

[ferryman]

Op Grange Remit

The support and expertise proffered by the Commissioner will be provided by the Homicide & Serious Crime Command - SCD1. 

The activity, in the first instance, will be that of an ‘investigative review’.  This will entail a review of the whole of the investigation(s) which have been conducted in to the circumstances of Madeleine McCann’s disappearance.

The focus of the review will be of the material held by three main stakeholders (and in the following order of primacy);

The Portuguese Law Enforcement agencies.
UK Law Enforcement agencies,
Other private investigative agencies/staff and organisations.

The investigative review is intended to collate, record and analyse what has gone before. 

It is to examine the case and seek to determine, (as if the abduction occurred in the UK) what additional, new investigative approaches we would take and which can assist the Portuguese authorities in progressing the matter. Whilst ordinarily a review has no investigative remit whatsoever- the scale and extent of this enquiry cannot permit for such an approach. It will take too long to progress to any “action stage” if activity is given wholly and solely to a review process.

The ‘investigative review’ will be conducted with transparency, openness and thoroughness.

The work will be overseen through the Gold Group management structure, which will also manage the central relationships with other key stakeholders and provide continuing oversight and direction to the investigative remit.

End

[ferryman]

There is a difference between two separate investigations and a joint investigation.

To answer your point about kill and murder I refer you to what the first judge said in the damages trial;

it is not unreasonable that the plaintiffs would feel badly about being considered responsible for hiding the body and staging an abduction - not, the Judge stresses, about being responsible for their daughter's death, as is commonly, and mistakenly, believed.
http://miscarriageofjustice.co/index.php?topic=5931.0

So the judge said they had been accused of neither

Any money Amaral receives if he is cleared will be his own money being returned to him, no-one else's.

Think you might be confusing what the judge said with what Anne Guides said the judge said.

According to Anne Guides, the judge said the book had not harmed the search for Madeleine.

The judge actually said the book had not harmed the investigation into Madeleine's disappearance (undeniably true; the book was published after the investigation was shelved).

[stephen25000]

Think you might be confusing what the judge said with what Anne Guides said the judge said.

According to Anne Guides, the judge said the book had not harmed the search for Madeleine.

The judge actually said the book had not harmed the investigation into Madeleine's disappearance (undeniably true; the book was published after the investigation was shelved).

How can you harm a 'search' if the 'search' was ongoing ?

You need to get it through to your head, there is no automatic right for the Mccanns tale to be believed.

[stephen25000]

A sense of deja vu springs to mind.

Meanwhile would any of the McCann supporters care to comment on what happens if the Mccanns fail in the Supreme Court ?

[misty]

A sense of deja vu springs to mind.

Meanwhile would any of the McCann supporters care to comment on what happens if the Mccanns fail in the Supreme Court ?

GA will be able to pay off some of his debts and the McCanns will take the issue to the ECHR.

[Mr Gray]

A sense of deja vu springs to mind.

Meanwhile would any of the McCann supporters care to comment on what happens if the Mccanns fail in the Supreme Court ?

a sense of deja vu springs to mind,,,,this has been discussed at length

[G-Unit]

GA will be able to pay off some of his debts and the McCanns will take the issue to the ECHR.

It depends how large his debts are. If he gets 7 year's interest that would help. The McCanns may go to the ECHR, but that will only net a compensation payment from the Portuguese government if they win.

Britain has lost cases at the ECHR, paying an average of £22,000 per head.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/law-and-order/10362563/Human-rights-cases-in-Europe-have-cost-Britain-more-than-4m.html

[John]

Op Grange Remit

The support and expertise proffered by the Commissioner will be provided by the Homicide & Serious Crime Command - SCD1. 

The activity, in the first instance, will be that of an ‘investigative review’.  This will entail a review of the whole of the investigation(s) which have been conducted in to the circumstances of Madeleine McCann’s disappearance.

The focus of the review will be of the material held by three main stakeholders (and in the following order of primacy);

The Portuguese Law Enforcement agencies.
UK Law Enforcement agencies,
Other private investigative agencies/staff and organisations.

The investigative review is intended to collate, record and analyse what has gone before. 

It is to examine the case and seek to determine, (as if the abduction occurred in the UK) what additional, new investigative approaches we would take and which can assist the Portuguese authorities in progressing the matter. Whilst ordinarily a review has no investigative remit whatsoever- the scale and extent of this enquiry cannot permit for such an approach. It will take too long to progress to any “action stage” if activity is given wholly and solely to a review process.

The ‘investigative review’ will be conducted with transparency, openness and thoroughness.

The work will be overseen through the Gold Group management structure, which will also manage the central relationships with other key stakeholders and provide continuing oversight and direction to the investigative remit.

End

Massive fail then?  Maybe SY should have investigated post disappearance goings on instead?

[G-Unit]

The damages trial had nothing to do with deciding who was telling the truth, so that question wasn't considered or ruled on by either the lower court or the appeal court.

Those who knew or interacted with the members of the holiday group may have seen them as pillars of society before the disappearance of Madeleine McCann; but that isn't 'universal', which means everyone in the society.

After the disappearance it's clear that they are not universally respected in the UK or in any other country. Opinion is divided.

Pillar of Society. A person who is universally respected- reliable-decent and hard working that is more of a giver than taker; often engaging in voluntary work and taking up worthy causes who neighbors and the community have high regards and esteem for.
http://www.collinsdictionary.com/submission/9197/Pillar+of+Society

[Brietta]

Please may we get back on topic.  The damages case ... difficult I know because there is no information ... maybe the lesson is, find something else to discuss.
                                                                               %£&)**#

[Robittybob1]

I did hear someone say they (i think they were referring to these Judges) were upholding the respect of the Portuguese  Police.  Which made it sound like there was a political pressure being applied on the Judges to find in favour of Amaral to keep a degree of respect for the Police within their country.
This was part of a spoken commentary so I can't provide a cite but I did hear it (for I didn't record it), but it might give you a line of inquiry to follow up on.

[G-Unit]

I'm not responsible for how others respond to a question. I'm posting about the accuracy and relevance of the question itself.

The Appeal judges were not asked to decide who was telling the truth, their job was to decide if the lower court judge's ruling was correct.

Her ruling was about whether Amaral's right to freedom of expression was greater than the McCann's right to reputation. She decided it wasn't. The Appeal court decided she was wrong.

The honesty of either party wasn't considered by either court.

If people are saying the whole of the Portuguese nation believed Amaral over the McCanns and their friends they need to provide supporting evidence. It's no good looking at the first damages trial; the judge found 'not proved' that Portuguese [and other] people who read his book believed what he said and stopped looking foe Madeleine. Pure speculation!!

[Alfie]

Could we attempt to define the period denoted by the word "shortly" in the title of this thread, in an attempt to get it back on track and away from the petty sniping of WUMs?

[jassi]

How about 12 months as a starting point?