Goncalo Amaral interviewed after the Appeal Court decision.

[Robittybob1]

Another example of clear mischief making is that the McCanns were not charged because there was not enough evidence against them when in realliy there is no real evidence that implicates them
An accusation you have repeated
If there is evidence please state it
Otherwise stick to the facts

The nearest to evidence was that Kate left the other two kids alone when she went to raise the alarm.  OK it is a decision one would have to make  - maybe she should have rung reception instead? 

[Mr Gray]

The nearest to evidence was that Kate left the other two kids alone when she went to raise the alarm.  OK it is a decision one would have to make  - maybe she should have rung reception instead?

If that is the best you can come up with you prove my point

[stephen25000]

The nearest to evidence was that Kate left the other two kids alone when she went to raise the alarm.  OK it is a decision one would have to make  - maybe she should have rung reception instead?

Or scream and shout outside the apartment.

After all, we have been constantly told, the rest of the group were very close.

[Robittybob1]

Or scream and shout outside the apartment.

After all, we have been constantly told, the rest of the group were very close.

No you wouldn't hear her over their laughter.

[stephen25000]

No you wouldn't hear her over their laughter.

How do you know they were laughing ?

..and if they were therefore clearly distracted, what does that say about their childcare skills ?

[G-Unit]

The decision of the SC is beyond ludicrous when we take into account what amaral has said
But as you showed last week you are not aware of quite a lot of his accusations

You seem to be making the same complaint as Duarte when she commented on Amaral's appeal win;

This decision was an appreciation of the law and not the facts.

Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3547951/Portuguese-detective-WINS-appeal-against-libel-defeat-Madeleine-McCann-s-parents-NOT-pay-500-000-damages.html#ixzz4bNYZRGcK
Follow us: @MailOnline on Twitter | DailyMail on Facebook

As the first instance judgement was based on legal arguments it follows that the appeal judges examined and ruled on those arguments. It was, after all, the judgement they were looking at.

[Robittybob1]

How do you know they were laughing ?

..and if they were therefore clearly distracted, what does that say about their childcare skills ?

They were friends at the table having fun drinking and I'd imagine laughing, talking, joking etc.
I don't think they were sitting there quietly just in case one of the kids whimpered.

[Alfie]

The idea that SC judges mischief-make in the McCann case is beyond ludicrous.

You very much doubt a reconstruction would have helped prove the McCanns' innocence, the SC seem to disagree with your opinion, how do you account for this discrepancy?

[stephen25000]

They were friends at the table having fun drinking and I'd imagine laughing, talking, joking etc.
I don't think they were sitting there quietly just in case one of the kids whimpered.

So you agree Rob, they weren't looking after their children.

[Robittybob1]

So you agree Rob, they weren't looking after their children.

When they checked their kids they were serious but when they weren't, they partied.  I don't actually see anything wrong with that.

[stephen25000]

When they checked their kids they were serious but when they weren't, they partied.  I don't actually see anything wrong with that.

Then you do have a problem.

[Robittybob1]

Then you do have a problem.

So tell me what would you have done?

[stephen25000]

So tell me what would you have done?

Not leave them alone by themselves, whilst away drinking and eating.

Why didn't they eat and drink in the apartment ?

After all, it was a 'family holiday'.

[Robittybob1]

Not leave them alone by themselves, whilst away drinking and eating.

Why didn't they eat and drink in the apartment ?

After all, it was a 'family holiday'.

What about your friends?  it was mostly to have time with your colleagues wasn't it.  They could have done what you suggest back home.

[stephen25000]

What about your friends?  it was mostly to have time with your colleagues wasn't it.  They could have done what you suggest back home.

Well, one family I know did admit to leaving their son in a hotel room whilst they ate downstairs. It was locked, but he got out (a 4 year old by the way). Hotel staff found him wandering...........