Supreme Court rules against the McCanns in damages case.

[G-Unit]

If I understand you correctly, the case could even have been solved in the interim, that wouldn't matter as the SC judges are looking at the situation as it was in 2007/8.  Would Amaral have won his case if Madeleine had been found alive and well in the interim?

Quite. The question under consideration is whether he defamed the McCanns by putting his opinion in a book and documentary. The answer is he did not. What actually happened to Madeleine has no bearing on it.

The case, by the way, wasn't Amaral's, it was the McCann's. His involvement was involuntary as he was forced to defend himself against their accusations.

[Mr Gray]

It isn't bizarre at all if you understand that the judges opinions relate to events in 2007/8, which is what the 'libel' case is all about. That's why Duarte's points (which they are answering) also relate to that time. If any present investigation was relevant I'm sure she would have mentioned it.

Have the judges not said there are doubts about the abduction scenario
Present tense

[Robittybob1]

Would it have mattered?

If Madeleine was found alive, McCann would have been vindicated, they would (presumably) have Madeleine back and it really wouldn't matter what anybody had said

No, the wheels of Justice were in motion and they would still be responsible for the court costs and having to pay Amaral back.

[jassi]

No, the wheels of Justice were in motion and they would still be responsible for the court costs and having to pay Amaral back.

But as McCann said " it's not about the money."
In the event you suggest, McCann might have withdrawn their action and the Appeal judges might then have awarded costs equally, while unfreezing Amaral assets.

Among all the rejoicing, only a vindictive person would insist on his pound of flesh.

[Robittybob1]

But as McCann said " it's not about the money."
In the event you suggest, McCann might have withdrawn their action and the Appeal judges might then have awarded costs equally, while unfreezing Amaral assets.

Among all the rejoicing, only a vindictive person would insist on his pound of flesh.

There is hope then.

[jassi]

There is hope then.

Of what?

[Robittybob1]

Of what?

In the event [of Madeleine being found], McCann might have withdrawn their action and the Appeal judges might then have awarded costs equally, while unfreezing Amaral assets.

[Robittybob1]

Have the judges not said there are doubts about the abduction scenario
Present tense

No they quoted the Archiving Document.

[stephen25000]

In the event [of Madeleine being found], McCann might have withdrawn their action and the Appeal judges might then have awarded costs equally, while unfreezing Amaral assets.

Why do you think Madeleine will be found alive, when there has not been one trace of her since she disappeared.

Before you say other people have been found,l would remind you that this case has had unparalleled publicity around the world, and with zero results in finding her.

The Mccann's brought the action against Amaral, and now it seems they don't want to pay up.

[Robittybob1]

Why do you think Madeleine will be found alive, when there has not been one trace of her since she disappeared.

Before you say other people have been found,l would remind you that this case has had unparalleled publicity around the world, and with zero results in finding her.

The Mccann's brought the action against Amaral, and now it seems they don't want to pay up.

I think she was given another person's identity.

[Mr Gray]

It isn't bizarre at all if you understand that the judges opinions relate to events in 2007/8, which is what the 'libel' case is all about. That's why Duarte's points (which they are answering) also relate to that time. If any present investigation was relevant I'm sure she would have mentioned it.

Have the judges not said there are doubts about the abduction scenario
Present tense

[G-Unit]

Have the judges not said there are doubts about the abduction scenario
Present tense

I don't know without looking at the report. Do you have the page number where you read it please?

[Robittybob1]

I don't know without looking at the report. Do you have the page number where you read it please?

This is part of the prologue of the book.  Why they need to basically  rewrite the book is beyond me.
"Page 29
– Maybe the national director thinks that the McCanns left the Algarve because of the arguido status.

– They stayed in the Algarve as long as the abduction thesis was talked about... When this thesis was questioned , they immediately started talking about returning to England.

– Hence we can conclude that the arguido status was only a pretext to abandon the country."

Page 30
part of the same prologue?? "4. All statements and testimonies reveal numerous inaccuracies, incongruities and contradictions - some could even be described as false testimony. In particular the key-testimony for the abduction thesis, that of Jane Tanner, loses all credibility due to constant evolution which makes it ambiguous and disqualified ."

[stephen25000]

This is part of the prologue of the book.  Why they need to basically  rewrite the book is beyond me.
"Page 29
– Maybe the national director thinks that the McCanns left the Algarve because of the arguido status.

– They stayed in the Algarve as long as the abduction thesis was talked about... When this thesis was questioned , they immediately started talking about returning to England.

– Hence we can conclude that the arguido status was only a pretext to abandon the country."

Have you forgotten Rob, that the McCann's promised to stay in Portugal until Madeleine was found ?

While you're at it, can you tell me why Blair and his wife, together with Brown and his wife, got involved ion this case ?

[G-Unit]

This is part of the prologue of the book.  Why they need to basically  rewrite the book is beyond me.
"Page 29
– Maybe the national director thinks that the McCanns left the Algarve because of the arguido status.

– They stayed in the Algarve as long as the abduction thesis was talked about... When this thesis was questioned , they immediately started talking about returning to England.

– Hence we can conclude that the arguido status was only a pretext to abandon the country."

Page 30
part of the same prologue?? "4. All statements and testimonies reveal numerous inaccuracies, incongruities and contradictions - some could even be described as false testimony. In particular the key-testimony for the abduction thesis, that of Jane Tanner, loses all credibility due to constant evolution which makes it ambiguous and disqualified ."

No, that's not it. That's Amaral's opinion, not the judge's.