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

[Brietta]

Please bear in mind that the topic of the thread is ...

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

[ferryman]

Please bear in mind that the topic of the thread is ...

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

A joint enquiry (that holds out, at the very least, hope of finding Madeleine alive) should mean that the Amaral has (marginally less) than a cat in hell's chance of winning the libel trial (when he accuses the McCanns of hiding her body and profiting from her death).

[carlymichelle]

A joint enquiry (that holds out, at the very least, hope of finding Madeleine alive) should mean that the Amaral has (marginally less) than a cat in hell's chance of winning the libel trial (when he accuses the McCanns of hiding her body and profiting from her death).

he  did win though his book  is selling in portugal  is it not??

[ferryman]

Still, even if the enquiry into Madeleine's abduction is extended until 2017, I don't suppose the Portuguese courts will perceive any sense of self-mockery in handing Amaral victory in the libel trial ....

[sadie]

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.

It WAS Amarals appeal and Ferryman made that plain by saying Amarals successful appeal

[sadie]

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.

What was the learned ladies name?  Anyone know?

[ferryman]

You appear to have failed to highlight words remotely resembling "Joint Anglo / Portuguese Inquiry"
Perhaps you would like to have another try?
A bit like PIN numbers and passwords ; three wrong answers and it blows a raspberry at you.

You appear to have ignored the words "first instance" ...

[stephen25000]

It WAS Amarals appeal and Ferryman made that plain by saying Amarals successful appeal

Who made the appeal to the Supreme Court ?

It wasn't Donald Duck.

[ferryman]

Thread topic: let's hope the sanity and common sense (of the verdict of the first-instance judge) is restored.

[stephen25000]

Thread topic: let's hope the sanity and common sense (of the verdict of the first-instance judge) is restored.

No, the appeal judges got it right.

They went by the law in reversing the main decision.

You also seem to forget how many failures the Mccanns had in the initial judgement.

[ferryman]

No, the appeal judges got it right.

They went by the law in reversing the main decision.

You also seem to forget how many failures the Mccanns had in the initial judgement.

I tend to remember that most of what we see on-line is Anne Guide's version of events.

In particular, Anne Guides said that it was not proved that the book harmed the search for Madeleine, when she (the judge!) actually said that the book had not harmed the investigation into Madeleine's disappearance (quite different).

[stephen25000]

I tend to remember that most of what we see on-line is Anne Guide's version of events.

In particular, Anne Guides said that it was not proved that the book harmed the search for Madeleine, when she (the judge!) actually said that the book had not harmed the investigation into Madeleine's disappearance (quite different).

Illogical response.

A 'search' was ongoing.

[Alfie]

I tend to remember that most of what we see on-line is Anne Guide's version of events.

In particular, Anne Guides said that it was not proved that the book harmed the search for Madeleine, when she (the judge!) actually said that the book had not harmed the investigation into Madeleine's disappearance (quite different).

She actually said "not proved", not that it definitely hadn't harmed the investigation.

[ferryman]

She actually said "not proved", not that it definitely hadn't harmed the investigation.

Key point being that the book was published after the investigation was shelved ....

Anne Guide's version: No proof the book harmed the search for Madeleine

(Quite different and not what the judge said).

[G-Unit]

She actually said "not proved", not that it definitely hadn't harmed the investigation.

I think it's the responsibility of the accusing party to prove that what they say is correct. They failed to prove this point.