McCann's v Amaral Appeal

Tracy Tracy Tracy... Get a real job!

Get'emGonçalo wrote:
I guess you must have posted on the 3A's too as that's where everyone went afterwards.

Yes indeed.

I know it's only Digital Spy but the fact that they are letting a McCann thread run is quite important.

For a good few years not a mention of the McCann case was allowed, threads were shut down as soon as they were started. It was believed that this was because the McCann people were so litigious.

Tuesday's ruling has turned that around on it's head.

Digital Spy, I believe, is one of the most widely read forums in the UK.

MrsC wrote:I know it's only Digital Spy but the fact that they are letting a McCann thread run is quite important.

For a good few years not a mention of the McCann case was allowed, threads were shut down as soon as they were started. It was believed that this was because the McCann people were so litigious.

Tuesday's ruling has turned that around on it's head.

Digital Spy, I believe, is one of the most widely read forums in the UK.

Fair enough, but surely the owner can see that there are other McCann forums that are still up and running?

I think it's only this forum that's been Carter-Rucked several times, but we're still here and getting stronger by the day despite best efforts by certain people elsewhere to discredit our work.

Onwards and upwards towards justice for Madeleine Beth McCann.

I think this is a slightly longer article than before.

[You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]


Posted by PORTUGALPRESS on January 31, 2017






[You must be registered and logged in to see this image.]

In a case of “second time proved right” former PJ coordinator Gonçalo Amaral has seen a national court take his side in the long-running civil action taken out by the parents of Madeleine McCann.

The Supreme Court convened on Tuesday to consider the case. SIC television was the first media source to report that judges decided to dismiss it.

This means that Supreme Court judges do not consider there are grounds to appeal against the decision given in April last year by Lisbon’s Appellate Court which ruled that Amaral was well within his rights of freedom of expression when he wrote the book: “Madeleine: The Truth of the Lie” ([You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]).

SIC’s report says the McCanns have now “lost the case against Gonçalo Amaral” as “there are no further opportunities to reverse the decision” of the Appellate Court.

Whether this is true remains to be seen. The McCanns lawyer Isabel Duarte has intimated to British press that the couple could take the case to the European Court of Human Rights if they lost in Portugal.

The Supreme Court's full judgement will be published later this week, and is expected to award all costs against the McCanns.

British tabloid journalists on their way to Portugal for the reading of the decision have told the Resident that this will be "devastating" for the couple who initiated the case against Amaral almost a decade ago. At the time, damages sought for the thesis that Madeleine had died in a tragic accident which her parents had subsequently concealed were set at over €1 million.

For now, Amaral is keeping the silence he has always said was so necessary for justice to be allowed to work. The Projecto Justiça Gonçalo Amaral website, which has kept supporters up to date with his battle for vindication has posted two announcements since the breaking news on Tuesday.

The first said simply "Justice has prevailed", the second: "Thank you".

"This is the culmination of a costly, difficult process that caused a lot of pain and distress, not only to the persons directly involved, but also to many who refused to be silenced, both on the internet and 'offline', said the second post, published on Wednesday.

"Nonetheless, it also brought out the very best in so many people who have shown their support, both morally and materially, over so many years. It has been tremendously encouraging and heartening, and it must unequivocally be stated that without you, it would simply not have been possible to walk this road towards Justice.

"We await the publication of the Court's decision and will update you soon with relevant information.

"In the meantime, there are simply no words that even remotely match the strength and the tenacity that you have dedicated to this process.

"So a mere "Thank you" will have to do".

[You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]

Madeleine McCann's parents 'disappointed' by libel ruling

2nd February 2017

In 2015, Goncalo Amaral was ordered to pay 500,000 euros (£425,000) to Kate and Gerry McCann, of Rothley, Leicestershire, after he implicated them in their daughter's disappearance.

The decision was overturned following an appeal last year.

The McCanns took the case to Portugal's Supreme Court, but it was dismissed.

Madeleine went missing days before her fourth birthday, while on a family holiday in the Algarve in 2007, and has not been seen since.

Mr Amaral had suggested the couple faked her abduction.

While the judges' official ruling is yet to be published, lawyers for Mr and Mrs McCann have been informed of the decision.

According to the Associated Press news agency, a court official said the court had ruled the allegations were protected by freedom of expression laws.

"What we have been told by our lawyers is obviously extremely disappointing," the McCanns said in a statement.

"It is eight years since we brought the action and in that time the landscape has dramatically changed, namely there is now a joint Metropolitan Police-Policia Judiciaria investigation, which is what we've always wanted.

"The police in both countries continue to work on the basis that there is no evidence that Madeleine has come to physical harm."

Madeleine went missing from her family's holiday apartment in Praia da Luz, on May 3 2007, as her parents dined at a nearby tapas restaurant with friends.

Mr Amaral, who led the initial investigation into Madeleine's disappearance but was taken off the case in October 2007, released his book - In The Truth Of The Lie - three days after Portuguese police closed their investigation the following year.

He later took part in a documentary for Portuguese television in which he claimed Madeleine was dead, there had been no abduction and that the McCanns had hidden her body.

The McCanns have said previously the claims had exacerbated their anguish and discouraged people from coming forward with information.

Scotland Yard started a review of the case in May 2011, after then-Prime Minister David Cameron responded to a plea from the McCanns.

[You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]

thx to [You must be registered and logged in to see this link.] ............Today at 12:46 am

LBC NICK FERRARI WEDNESDAY 1 FEBRUARY 2017

Nick Ferrari - Victory for the ex detective who accused the McCanns and Kate and Gerry McCann now facing a legal bill that some say could be half a million pounds. What is at the heart of these accusations or allegations . James Murray is  Associate Editor of Sunday Express and has led that paper's coverage of this story and has had a few exclusives in his time on the story, joins us now. So what is at the heart of these allegations James, morning.

James Murray - Good morning well they stem from his book The Truth of the Lie which was published shortly after he quit which was September 2007.  In the book he says he quoted from the Police file report which stated that it was possible that Madeleine had died in the apartment.  erm now his argument  is that his book was a reflection of the Police er opinion to date when he left of what had occurred and he had perfect right to publish that book. Kate and Gerry obviously contested that view and they believe that Madeleine is alive and that they certainly didn't have anything to do with it so they took legal action.

Nick Ferrari - and the heart of the - allegation - I stress, is that there was some kind of accident or incident within the apartment that cased Madeleine's death

James Murray - Yes it was claimed in the Police report that there had been an accident within the flat 5a within the  Ocean Club in Prai da Luz er which has caused the death - now that was not borne out by anything that Scotland Yard found, in fact when Scotland yard looked at it they said there was no evidence that suggests that she was dead, in fact Andy Redwood who was leading it at that time, said he believed she could well be alive.

Nick Ferrari - Lastly the headlines suggesting that they are looking at a legal bill of half million pounds, do you see that as likely James

James Murray - Well yes I do as Goncalo Amaral has spent a fortune defending his reputation and book and he has run up massive legal bills himself and he will be looking to get that money returned.    He has had to sell his property, he is living with his father in Lisbon, er he is in pretty dire financial straits it has pretty well ruined his life all this, so yes he will be wanting to exact a financial settlement with the McCanns.

Nick Ferrari, many thanks  associate Editor of Sunday Express led the newspaper coverage of that story and turned over a few exclusives too.

--------------------------------------------------------------
James Murray - "Yes it was claimed in the Police report that there had been an accident within the flat 5a within the  Ocean Club in Prai da Luz er which has caused the death - now that was not borne out by anything that Scotland Yard found, in fact when Scotland yard looked at it they said there was no evidence that suggests that she was dead, in fact Andy Redwood who was leading it at that time, said he believed she could well be alive."
------------------------------------------------------------------

Just a pity then that James Murray (JM) DIDN'T also TELL NF that Detective Chief Inspector Andy Redwood, added "that there was a possibility that she had not left her family's holiday apartment alive when she disappeared" in May 2007.

and

Ex DCI Redwood also said "the assumption that Madeleine was abducted, may not follow with all our thinking on the case."

Oh well, such are the 'alt facts' by JM.

Have ANY 'serious' UK 'journos' rushed to Portugal and 'cheque booked' GA for 'a world exclusive' on his 'victory' in the Portuguese Supreme Court.?

Right up Jenni K's 'alley' I would have thought, 'injustice' and all that.

jeanmonroe wrote:Have ANY 'serious' UK 'journos'  rushed to Portugal and 'cheque booked' GA for 'a world exclusive' on his 'victory' in the Portuguese Supreme Court.?

Right up Jenni K's 'alley' I would have thought, 'injustice' and all that.

Isn't there a very well respected freelance journalist slash social commentator slash sofa queen slash documentary producer, available for a fast buck?

Who better for the job than a floating free-range justice seeker - complete with ready made camera crew?

Verdi wrote:

jeanmonroe wrote:Have ANY 'serious' UK 'journos'  rushed to Portugal and 'cheque booked' GA for 'a world exclusive' on his 'victory' in the Portuguese Supreme Court.?

Right up Jenni K's 'alley' I would have thought, 'injustice' and all that.

Isn't there a very well respected freelance journalist slash social commentator slash sofa queen slash documentary producer, available for a fast buck?

Who better for the job than a floating free-range justice seeker - complete with ready made camera crew?

Sonia P and her 'ready made camera crew' are suddenly 'very busy, busy, busy'......elsewhere!!!

Methinks the 'youtuber' is a tad 'upset'!

"well.... of course she fcuking will!"

I wonder.

Could or would Dr. Amaral be able to sue clarrie since clarrie made (repeated) comments about him that were perhaps defamatory and impugned his abilty as the lead investigator in the search for Maddie and also in regard to the court case, intervies and statements given?

jeanmonroe wrote:

Methinks the 'youtuber' is a tad 'upset'!

"well.... of course she fcuking will!"

[You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]


Echo truths...this I see is the real story... the sun used her name to promote....she is nothing ambassador of the choir.....correction!

So, 'thinking'

If, the specific, OG 'ceases' shortly, will any 'files' be published, to explain the specific use of over £16million of UK taxpayers money having been 'spent' on a SINGLE 'missing' child 'investigation'?

But, more importantly, imo, will the 'second' PJ 'investigation' also be closed, simultaneously, and their 'second, reopened, investigation' files be released, into the pubic domain, as is 'required, in law' in Portugal, when a 'case' is 'shelved', pending new 'evidence' or 'closed'.

The 'second' PJ 'investigation' that started AFTER OG was established, in 2011.

Details like..... SY's 'Ex DCI Redwood's 'co-operation', or not, with Portuguese 'authorities' from 2012 ('review' into 'investigation') and SY's DCI Wall's 'co-operation', or not, with Portuguese 'authorities' since 2014. ('investigation' only)

jeanmonroe wrote:So, 'thinking'

If, the specific, OG 'ceases' shortly, will any 'files' be published, to explain the specific use of over £16million of UK taxpayers money having been 'spent' on a SINGLE 'missing' child 'investigation'?

But, more importantly, imo, will the 'second' PJ 'investigation' also be closed, simultaneously, and their 'second, reopened, investigation' files be released, into the pubic domain, as is 'required, in law' in Portugal, when a 'case' is 'shelved', pending new 'evidence' or 'closed'.

The 'second' PJ 'investigation' that started AFTER OG was established, in 2011.

Details like..... SY's 'Ex DCI Redwood's 'co-operation', or not, with Portuguese 'authorities' from 2012 ('review' into 'investigation') and SY's DCI Wall's 'co-operation', or not, with Portuguese 'authorities' since 2014. ('investigation' only)

I see no reason why this would be any different from the first time around. But expert on Portuguese law.  As a UK tax payer some answers or at least some credible explanations would be helpful

Updates

31 January, 2017 - Statement from Gerry and Kate Regarding Portuguese Supreme Court Ruling

What we have been told by our lawyers is obviously extremely disappointing.

It is eight years since we brought the action and in that time the landscape has dramatically changed, namely there is now a joint Metropolitan Police-Policia Judiciaria investigation which is what we've always wanted.

The police in both countries continue to work on the basis that there is no evidence that Madeleine has come to physical harm.
We will, of course, be discussing the implications of the Supreme Court ruling with our lawyers in due course.

Gerry and Kate

[You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]

Verdi wrote:

Updates

The police in both countries continue to work on the basis that there is no evidence that Madeleine has come to physical harm.

That's isn't true.

Simply not true.

PJ believed a death occurred and the parents covered it up.

Scotland Yard think that she may have died in the apartment.

"No evidence"?

[You must be registered and logged in to see this image.]

[You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]


Supreme Court McCanns NOT  cleared!

McCanns NOT cleared

I hadn't checked in for a few weeks, so missed this big news... What a good outcome after such a long long wait. Happy!

I've said before that the McCanns scuppered their litigation against Goncalo Amaral when they dragged before the Lisbon Courts, their entourage of witnesses to prove their case.  This is Gerry McCann's pièce de résistance that concluded his testimony..

Libel trial McCann v Goncalo Amaral - Day 12 - Gerald McCann's deposition 08 July 2014

There's no more questions and the Judge is about to dismiss the plaintiff when GMC claims that he has something to say.

The judge says that in a civil trial the parties aren't allowed to spontaneous depositions. But she allows him: please do speak!

GMC says that he wants to make a comment about the dogs; he wants to make it clear that it is not a fact that they detected blood...

The judge interrupts him – The issue here isn't not to elucidate what actually happened. The perspective, in this trial, is to determine whether the book and the documentary affected the plaintiffs.

GMC – But the book mentions facts that aren't true.

The judge – The point isn't to establish whether things are true or not, this is not the issue. We want to know whether we are in the juridical remit of offence to persons. For this it's not necessary to know what the truth is. As a judge I'm not supposed to stand in for a criminal investigation.

And so it ended

[Acknowledgement Anne Guedes]

Whimper whimper



[You must be registered and logged in to see this image.]

I so wish she'd asked him what facts were untrue? 
Erm, erm, erm you know erm..........

MayMuse wrote:I so wish she'd asked him what facts were untrue? 
Erm, erm, erm you know erm..........

There is no evidence to suggest that the dogs are reliable blah blah blah.....

Witness Michael Wright:   Libel Trial 20 September 2013

[You must be registered and logged in to see this image.]

McCann family lawyer, Isabel Duarte, is the first to question the witness.

ID - We are here to analyse the effect on the McCann's family life of the publication of GA's book and the documentary inspired by this book. Can you tell the court what you know about this?

MW After the lifting of the arguido status they (the McCanns) were well, though no authority was searching for Madeleine any more. It was very important that people looked for her in Portugal. According to the book they were somehow involved in the disappearance of Madeleine. Therefore the book hampered the search for her.

ID interrupts MW because she can't hear him (there's a motor outside, perhaps cutting the grass). ID makes known the lines of questioning she intends to pursue but the Judge reminds her that witness statements which are off topic will not be permitted.

ID - asks whether the investigation was hampered because of GA's book and an article in the Correio da Manhã (Portuguese Morning Post newspaper).

MW says it's what he understood.

ID - What happened when the files were released?

MW  The McCanns had to have them translated in order to study them. They had to lead a campaign to motivate the public to search for Madeleine.

ID - Do you know whether there was an end to the investigation?

MW It was public knowledge that the investigation was stopped.

ID - Did this event occur because of the publication of the book?

MW The content of the book was conflicting with what was in the files. He says he would be speculating if he answered the question.

ID - Don't you have knowledge of this direct relationship?

The Judge interrupts and asks whether the book was published before or after the archiving of the files.

MW says it was after.

The Judge – Then how could the book interfere with the investigation?

MW stays silent.

The Judge repeats the question.

MW says it didn't but it interfered with the following investigations made by the private investigators hired by Kate and Gerry.

The Judge overrules ID who wanted to know how the book influenced the McCann investigation.

ID starts asking if because of the.... but the Judge overrules again arguing she reveals the answer in the question. She adds that questions should be asked in an appropriate way.

[You must be registered and logged in to see this image.]

Apologies if this is the wrong place - no doubt there is a more appropriate thread to post detail of the Lisbon Supreme Court ruling.  All the new threads are confusing me so please feel free to move this if necessary..

McCann v. Amaral  Supreme Court verdict - 31st January 2017

Page 70
...(cf. Jónatas Machado, Freedom of Expression - Constitutional Dimensions, op. cit. pp. 566-7)

And let not be said, too, that the appellants were cleared by the order of filing the criminal proceedings.

In fact, that dispatch was not proclaimed by virtue of the Public Ministry having gained the conviction that the appellants had not committed any crime (cf. art. 277° of the CPP).
 
The filing, in this case, was decided because it was not possible for Public Ministry to obtain sufficient evidence of the practice of crimes by the appellants (cf. the cited art. 277°-2)

There is, therefore, a remarkable difference, and not merely a semantic one, between the legally admissible grounds of the filing order.

Thus, it does not appear acceptable to consider that the alluded dispatch, based on the insufficiency of evidence, should be treated as evidence of innocence.

We consider, therefore, that the invocation of breach of the principle of presumption of innocence should not be upheld. That principle does not fall under the decision about the question that has to be resolved.

Full English translation thanks to Anne Guede and Pamalam here..

[You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]

Reported in 2013 McCanns told not suspects, now is this the truth or media spin ? 
[You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]

The Supreme court have made their ruling.  No matter who says what on twitter or in the papers, the judges  have made it clear in their judgement what the position is.

If they are disappointed, furious, whatever and don't like it then try to appeal whether they are tired or not or ask their supporters to SHUT UP.