Supreme Court rules against the McCanns in damages case.

[carlymichelle]

This is not going to end well.

in what way he has  won  they cant take it any further 

[Mr Gray]

It's the end of the court case against Amaral. It's the end of the McCann's attempts to silence him. It's the end of any hope they had of adding his earnings to the Fund. Depending on the costs they face, it could be the end of the Fund itself.

It's a shame it's not the end of all the vile nastiness on the net

[Alfie]

I feel sorry for the twins and I think it's an absolute disgrace that there is stil so much unnecessary nastiness towards there parents on the net

We are being lectured that we must accept the rule of law and amaral is entitled to his opinion

Well respect the rule of law as it applies to the McCanns
They have not been found guilty of any offence
Stop treating them as if they are

It's the twins birthday tomorrow, poor things.  I hope their parents can summon the strength to carry on for their sakes.

[G-Unit]

The bad message it sends is that if the people responsible for Madeleine's disappearance are caught they are highly unlikely to be successfully prosecuted. The presumption of the McCanns right to innocence has been trashed & will form a suitable part of any defence argument in such circumstances.
I fail to understand why you feel justice has been served.

I don't follow your reasoning at all, sorry. The first judge thought Amaral had an obligation, as a retired policeman, to uphold the presumption of innocence. The higher courts said he did not have this obligation.

If anyone was to be arrested and tried in connection to this case how they could use that in their defense escapes me.

Justice has been served because the first judge based her conclusions solely on an argument that Amaral had breached obligations arising from his former employment. She was wrong.

[misty]

I don't follow your reasoning at all, sorry. The first judge thought Amaral had an obligation, as a retired policeman, to uphold the presumption of innocence. The higher courts said he did not have this obligation.

If anyone was to be arrested and tried in connection to this case how they could use that in their defense escapes me.

Justice has been served because the first judge based her conclusions solely on an argument that Amaral had breached obligations arising from his former employment. She was wrong.

If you cannot see that providing a publisher with data contained in files governed by Judicial Secrecy at the time was not a breach of his employment or retirement obligations then it appears you have a different interpretation of Portuguese law to mine.

[Alfie]

If and when it is confirmed that someone other than the McCanns were responsible for Madeleine's disappearance will this verdict still be viewed as justice served?

[G-Unit]

I feel sorry for the twins and I think it's an absolute disgrace that there is stil so much unnecessary nastiness towards there parents on the net

We are being lectured that we must accept the rule of law and amaral is entitled to his opinion

Well respect the rule of law as it applies to the McCanns
They have not been found guilty of any offence
Stop treating them as if they are

While most of the nastiness aimed at Amaral has been written in English, it's quite possible that his daughter can understand it. He has not been found guilty of any wrong doing in connection with this case. Hopefully people will now leave him alone.

[G-Unit]

If you cannot see that providing a publisher with data contained in files governed by Judicial Secrecy at the time was not a breach of his employment or retirement obligations then it appears you have a different interpretation of Portuguese law to mine.

Your interpretation seems to differ from that of Portugal's senior judges too. How patronising is that!

[Alice Purjorick]

If you cannot see that providing a publisher with data contained in files governed by Judicial Secrecy at the time was not a breach of his employment or retirement obligations then it appears you have a different interpretation of Portuguese law to mine.

That wasn't what was being tried.
Show us where it is in the writ.

[misty]

Your interpretation seems to differ from that of Portugal's senior judges too. How patronising is that!

It doesn't mean the Supreme court produced the correct judgement according to their own laws, though. If the case was so black & white, the first instance judge would never have ruled as she did.

[Alice Purjorick]

If and when it is confirmed that someone other than the McCanns were responsible for Madeleine's disappearance will this verdict still be viewed as justice served?

Tomorrow is another day said Dougal.........................and it was

[misty]

That wasn't what was being tried.
Show us where it is in the writ.

The right to freedom of speech comes with certain responsibilities & restrictions. Amaral breached those responsibilities imo but it would appear Portuguese justice ignores the writings of Article 10 ECHR as & when it suits.

[Alice Purjorick]

It doesn't mean the Supreme court produced the correct judgement according to their own laws, though. If the case was so black & white, the first instance judge would never have ruled as she did.

The Court of Appeal did not agree with the judge of the first instance; the Supreme Court it seems upheld the Court of Appeal's ruling. That seems to be simple enough.... the first judge made a mistake.

[Alfie]

 

The right to freedom of speech comes with certain responsibilities & restrictions. Amaral breached those responsibilities imo but it would appear Portuguese justice ignores the writings of Article 10 ECHR as & when it suits.

In Portugal the freedom to say what you like  about another even if it is unproven or untrue is more important than the right not to be smeared and lied about, that's what it boils down to.  Amaral fans think that's just, McCanns supporters think it's unjust, and never the twain shall meet.

[carlymichelle]

The Court of Appeal did not agree with the judge of the first instance; the Supreme Court it seems upheld the Court of Appeal's ruling. That seems to be simple enough.... the first judge made a mistake.

so in other words GA   doesnt have to answer to anyon including the mcanns