Duty of Reserve.

[ferryman]

He was misinformed ferryman just as he was by the FSS initially as to the significance of the dna results.

Misinformed how?

[ferryman]

there is no evidence amaral was misinformed by the FSS....theres evidence he did not understand the dna report

Agreed.

He misunderstood, I think, would be a better way of wording it.

[ferryman]

Your highly admired first instance judge didn't feel able to say that Amaral's book was full of lies which lowered the McCann's reputations. Probably because she decided it wasn't and it didn't, don't you think?

Absolutely!

The first-instance judge ordered Amaral to pay the McCanns half a million euros because she thought Amaral's book to be the epitome of unvarnished truth.

[G-Unit]

Absolutely!

The first-instance judge ordered Amaral to pay the McCanns half a million euros because she thought Amaral's book to be the epitome of unvarnished truth.

The first instance judge found in the McCann's favour because she decided that Amaral had a duty of reserve which he breached. Her opinion was rejected by the judges of the Appeal Court. It's really as simple as that.

[John]

The first instance judge found in the McCann's favour because she decided that Amaral had a duty of reserve which he breached. Her opinion was rejected by the judges of the Appeal Court. It's really as simple as that.

And the Supreme Court upheld that decision.

[Robittybob1]

As the first instance Judge pointed out, it is not her job to determine the investigation.

I wasn't expecting that but just confirmation of the points he raised.  And to check if the information was in the public file, to check he wasn't breaking his duty of reserve.

And the Supreme Court upheld that decision.

If only it was as simple as that.

[Robittybob1]

He was misinformed ferryman just as he was by the FSS initially as to the significance of the dna results.

And the documented proof of that is in the file is it? 

[Alice Purjorick]

That is fair.  She only took away what she had considered they had illegally gained.

Indeed. But I think you misunderstood my post.

[Robittybob1]

Indeed. But I think you misunderstood my post.

Would you care to have another go at it then.  I think I did get it generally, but there were references in it I didn't understand.

[ferryman]

there is no evidence amaral was misinformed by the FSS....theres evidence he did not understand the dna report

Correct.

[Robittybob1]

there is no evidence amaral was misinformed by the FSS....theres evidence he did not understand the dna report

But I see they say it is how he "interpreted the facts" that count.   In other words even if the facts don't fit but he interprets them in his way to favour his theory we can do nothing about it.

What I am noticing is that the first instance case was won on the idea of breaking the duty of reserve, which doesn't seem to be the thrust of the McCann's case but a concept the Judge picked up and ran with herself.  Had she not hijacked the trial and just looked at the strength of the McCann case, maybe the issue would have ended there.
On appeal the finding was overturned because the appeal judges said Amaral didn't have this duty of reserve, and the SC confirmed that, yet all along it wasn't an argument proposed by the McCanns.
Their argument was about damages caused by Amaral's claims.  So his claims of fact get blurred by being called a theory and nothing can be done about that.
Was it a theory or was he proposing his case as a fact?

[G-Unit]

But I see they say it is how he "interpreted the facts" that count.   In other words even if the facts don't fit but he interprets them in his way to favour his theory we can do nothing about it.

What I am noticing is that the first instance case was won on the idea of breaking the duty of reserve, which doesn't seem to be the thrust of the McCann's case but a concept the Judge picked up and ran with herself.  Had she not hijacked the trial and just looked at the strength of the McCann case, maybe the issue would have ended there.
On appeal the finding was overturned because the appeal judges said Amaral didn't have this duty of reserve, and the SC confirmed that, yet all along it wasn't an argument proposed by the McCanns.
Their argument was about damages caused by Amaral's claims.  So his claims of fact get blurred by being called a theory and nothing can be done about that.
Was it a theory or was he proposing his case as a fact?

It was very much driven by the McCanns;

Madeleine McCann's parents to report Portuguese cop for breach of secrecy
By Antonella Lazzeri of The Sun
January 16, 2010 8:55am
http://www.dailytelegraph.com.au/madeleine-mccanns-parents-to-report-portuguese-cop-for-breach-of-secrecy/news-story/07405dcf5c9a82adea2a910119c60f91?sv=bb223ac845a7fd2514409417b33ef35d

[Robittybob1]

It was very much driven by the McCanns;

Madeleine McCann's parents to report Portuguese cop for breach of secrecy
By Antonella Lazzeri of The Sun
January 16, 2010 8:55am
http://www.dailytelegraph.com.au/madeleine-mccanns-parents-to-report-portuguese-cop-for-breach-of-secrecy/news-story/07405dcf5c9a82adea2a910119c60f91?sv=bb223ac845a7fd2514409417b33ef35d

OK but was it raised by the McCanns in the trial?

[G-Unit]

OK but was it raised by the McCanns in the trial?

Yes

[Alice Purjorick]

Would you care to have another go at it then.  I think I did get it generally, but there were references in it I didn't understand.

I am baffled why the judge of the First Instance Court is held in such high esteem by some supporters based on her arcane decision that Amaral should not profit, when she[Judge Emilia] booted out more than 60% of the claim at first pass. Then the bit she upheld she ultimately lost 2:1 on aggregate to the Court of Appeal and Supreme Court.
Unless the suporters were blind or innumerate they could not have failed to notice the game was lost at First Instance 2:1 on valuation.The supporters angle now being like that of soccer supporters whose team lost due to, in their eyes, a dodgy decision by the referee not to call an offside.
One could be forgiven for believing that some supporters will be disatisfied until a reckoning has been achieved for a multitude of slights effected by one particular gentleman but only as perceived by the supporters.