Duty of Reserve.

[G-Unit]

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.

The problem is that most of the supporter's arguments have nothing to do with the grounds on which the first instance judge made her decision. If their arguments are relevant they need to consider why she didn't use them in her judgement.

[Alfie]

I am baffled as to why anyone would think that had Amaral's appeal against the first judgement been thrown out that this would have been a failure for the McCanns, to have walked away with the largest damages settlement in Portuguese history. 

[G-Unit]

I am baffled as to why anyone would think that had Amaral's appeal against the first judgement been thrown out that this would have been a failure for the McCanns, to have walked away with the largest damages settlement in Portuguese history.

The first instance judgement was very shaky, but Amaral's ability to appeal had been damaged by the injunction freezing his assets. Had people not donated to allow him to appeal it would indeed have been a resounding victory. The appeal demonstrated just how much of a miscarriage of justice that would have been.

[ferryman]

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

I think we are entitled to a view that it was not a coincidence in timing that, upon Amaral being informed by the Portuguese forensic laboratory that they had been given nothing to test to enable them to establish Madeleine's DNA, the lie promptly broke: Gerry not Madeleine's father.

[Alice Purjorick]

I am baffled as to why anyone would think that had Amaral's appeal against the first judgement been thrown out that this would have been a failure for the McCanns, to have walked away with the largest damages settlement in Portuguese history.

That is because you do not understand what the payment was about and seemingly the value of the writ. Try reading and comprehending the first instance judgement properly. Even OxfordBlue called that one correctly.

[Alfie]

The first instance judgement was very shaky, but Amaral's ability to appeal had been damaged by the injunction freezing his assets. Had people not donated to allow him to appeal it would indeed have been a resounding victory. The appeal demonstrated just how much of a miscarriage of justice that would have been.

Well thanks for admitting that at least.

[G-Unit]

Well thanks for admitting that at least.

It would have been resounding but wrong.

[Alfie]

It would have been resounding but wrong.

A resounding victory, yes.  Wrong, not in my opinion. 

[ferryman]

That is because you do not understand what the payment was about and seemingly the value of the writ. Try reading and comprehending the first instance judgement properly. Even OxfordBlue called that one correctly.

No,  it demonstrated how myopic (at most charitable) Portuguese appeal-court judges are.

With a joint-investigation (possibly) on the brink of solving the case, Amaral might yet be made to look a tad daft accusing the McCanns of disposing of her body and simulating an 'abduction'.

Oh, and launching a fraudulent "fund" in their (dead) daughter's name.

[G-Unit]

A resounding victory, yes.  Wrong, not in my opinion.

Your opinion is irrelevant.

[Mr Gray]

Your opinion is irrelevant.

so is everyones on this forum

[Eleanor]

Your opinion is irrelevant.

As is yours.

[G-Unit]

As is yours.

Unsupported opinions aren't worthy of attention, whoever they belong to. Opinions based on known facts are much more interesting because there has been an effort to explain why the opinion was formed.

[Eleanor]

Unsupported opinions aren't worthy of attention, whoever they belong to. Opinions based on known facts are much more interesting because there has been an effort to explain why the opinion was formed.

But only in your opinion.

[Robittybob1]

Unsupported opinions aren't worthy of attention, whoever they belong to. Opinions based on known facts are much more interesting because there has been an effort to explain why the opinion was formed.

Didn't the opinion of the Court judges come into their decisions?  There are continual references to the McCanns own interviews, now I think it is right that the parents are interviewed so why should that have an effect on Amaral's duty of reserve.  I can't see how they can logically link the two together.