Disappeared and Abducted Children and Young Adults => Madeleine McCann (3) disappeared from her parent's holiday apartment at Ocean Club, Praia da Luz, Portugal on 3 May 2007. No trace of her has ever been found. => Topic started by: Montclair on January 31, 2017, 03:29:35 PM
Title: Supreme Court rules against the McCanns in damages case.
Post by: Montclair on January 31, 2017, 03:29:35 PM
It's official, the McCanns lost their appeal!
Judgement in full http://miscarriageofjustice.co/index.php?topic=7937.msg383226#msg383226
LISBON, Portugal (AP) — Portugal's Supreme Court has ruled that missing British girl Madeleine McCann's parents can't sue for libel a former Portuguese detective who published a book alleging they were involved in their daughter's disappearance.
A court official told The Associated Press on Tuesday that Portugal's highest court ruled the allegations are protected by freedom of expression laws and weren't abusive.
The official spoke on condition of anonymity because the decision hadn't yet been published.
A Lisbon court in 2015 ordered Goncalo Amaral to pay Kate and Gerry McCann 500,000 euros ($540,000) in compensation. The McCanns had sought 1.2 million euros.
An appeals court last year overturned that conviction before reaching Portugal's top court.
Madeleine disappeared from a vacation home in Portugal's Algarve region in May 2007, days before her 4th birthday.
2133
Title: Re: Supreme Court rules against the McCanns in damages case.
Post by: xtina on January 31, 2017, 03:33:06 PM
The couple McCann lost the appeal in the Supreme Court against Gonçalo Amaral, former inspector of the Judiciary Police. The information is advanced by SIC Notícias . Gerry and Kate appealed to the Supreme Court against the former PJ inspector. Gonçalo Amaral who wrote a book - "Truth of the Lie" - where he argued that Maddie's parents were the real culprits for his disappearance in 2007 in Praia da Luz, Algarve.
Title: Re: Supreme Court rules against the McCanns in damages case.
Post by: Alfie on January 31, 2017, 03:55:45 PM
hopefully now its over he will be able to get on with his life ......that he deserves to do.
Title: Re: Supreme Court rules against the McCanns in damages case.
Post by: John on January 31, 2017, 04:05:31 PM
Well Hallelujah! It's about time they came out with a decision, any decision!
Title: Re: Supreme Court rules against the McCanns in damages case.
Post by: Alice Purjorick on January 31, 2017, 04:16:24 PM
How long will it be before there is a thread devoted to slagging off Portugals legal system?
Title: Re: Supreme Court rules against the McCanns in damages case.
Post by: Alfie on January 31, 2017, 04:18:34 PM
Though this is undoubtedly yet another kick in the teeth for them and though they must feel a huge injustice has been served to them and their family, I think the McCanns will get over it. Let's hope they don't get any daft ideas about going to the ECHR (if that is even an option, not sure). Time to move on and try and forget about the little creep and his book now IMO.
Title: Re: Supreme Court rules against the McCanns in damages case.
Post by: xtina on January 31, 2017, 04:22:56 PM
Though this is undoubtedly yet another kick in the teeth for them and though they must feel a huge injustice has been served to them and their family, I think the McCanns will get over it. Let's hope they don't get any daft ideas about going to the ECHR (if that is even an option, not sure). Time to move on and try and forget about the little creep and his book now IMO.
there again this may open can of worms ...........a lot have been waiting for ..............
MADDIE COURT BID QUASHED Maddie McCann’s parents lose court appeal to silence cop who claims they covered up daughter’s death Goncalo Amaral had worked on the investigation to find Maddie after she disappeared in May 2007
Title: Re: Supreme Court rules against the McCanns in damages case.
Post by: ShiningInLuz on January 31, 2017, 04:28:46 PM
Though this is undoubtedly yet another kick in the teeth for them and though they must feel a huge injustice has been served to them and their family, I think the McCanns will get over it. Let's hope they don't get any daft ideas about going to the ECHR (if that is even an option, not sure). Time to move on and try and forget about the little creep and his book now IMO.
I don't think it is as easy as that.
I am not an expert in McCann v Amaral. I am not an expert in Portuguese law. I am not an expert in European law.
But I have been told by someone with more knowledge than me that this outcome would result in the McCanns having to pay out very large sums of money.
Whether the Find Madeleine fund can pay for this purpose and the impact it would have is something we discussed a long time ago. I'm afraid my limited interest in this case means I have forgotten the details.
Title: Re: Supreme Court rules against the McCanns in damages case.
Post by: Mr Gray on January 31, 2017, 04:31:26 PM
I am not an expert in McCann v Amaral. I am not an expert in Portuguese law. I am not an expert in European law.
But I have been told by someone with more knowledge than me that this outcome would result in the McCanns having to pay out very large sums of money.
Whether the Find Madeleine fund can pay for this purpose and the impact it would have is something we discussed a long time ago. I'm afraid my limited interest in this case means I have forgotten the details.
it will be interesting to find out how reliable your sources are
Title: Re: Supreme Court rules against the McCanns in damages case.
Post by: xtina on January 31, 2017, 04:31:40 PM
Though this is undoubtedly yet another kick in the teeth for them and though they must feel a huge injustice has been served to them and their family, I think the McCanns will get over it. Let's hope they don't get any daft ideasabout going to the ECHR (if that is even an option, not sure). Time to move on and try and forget about the little creep and his book now IMO.
NO ECHR............iis not an option ....they lost...
they will have to pay him ....
assets unfrozen .they will have to ..........let it go
Title: Re: Supreme Court rules against the McCanns in damages case.
Post by: jassi on January 31, 2017, 04:32:41 PM
I am not an expert in McCann v Amaral. I am not an expert in Portuguese law. I am not an expert in European law.
But I have been told by someone with more knowledge than me that this outcome would result in the McCanns having to pay out very large sums of money.
Whether the Find Madeleine fund can pay for this purpose and the impact it would have is something we discussed a long time ago. I'm afraid my limited interest in this case means I have forgotten the details.
It'll be all to do with costs. Not sure if any of Amaral's sequestered money was ever transferred, though if so, that will have to be paid .
Title: Re: Supreme Court rules against the McCanns in damages case.
Post by: xtina on January 31, 2017, 04:33:18 PM
it will be interesting to find out how reliable your sources are
The decision of the Supreme has now been made known. According to SIC Notícias, the appeal was dismissed and the McCann couple lost the case against Gonçalo Amaral, having now no more opportunities to reverse the decision.
Title: Re: Supreme Court rules against the McCanns in damages case.
Post by: John on January 31, 2017, 04:36:31 PM
I am not an expert in McCann v Amaral. I am not an expert in Portuguese law. I am not an expert in European law.
But I have been told by someone with more knowledge than me that this outcome would result in the McCanns having to pay out very large sums of money.
Whether the Find Madeleine fund can pay for this purpose and the impact it would have is something we discussed a long time ago. I'm afraid my limited interest in this case means I have forgotten the details.
Amaral is planning to sue them for damages and now that the Supreme Court has cleared the last remaining obstacle nothing can hold him back.
Title: Re: Supreme Court rules against the McCanns in damages case.
Post by: Mr Gray on January 31, 2017, 04:38:03 PM
Amaral is planning to sue them for damages and now that the Supreme Court has cleared the last remaining obstacle nothing can hold him back.
LOL. So he'll win that, the McCanns will appeal, they will win, he will appeal, the judgement will be upheld - that should keep us busy for the next 10 years....
Title: Re: Supreme Court rules against the McCanns in damages case.
Post by: John on January 31, 2017, 04:39:11 PM
Though this is undoubtedly yet another kick in the teeth for them and though they must feel a huge injustice has been served to them and their family, I think the McCanns will get over it. Let's hope they don't get any daft ideas about going to the ECHR (if that is even an option, not sure). Time to move on and try and forget about the little creep and his book now IMO.
If only life were so simple Alfie. I fear this has opened a brand new chapter.
Title: Re: Supreme Court rules against the McCanns in damages case.
Post by: John on January 31, 2017, 04:40:30 PM
LOL. So he'll win that, the McCanns will appeal, they will win, he will appeal, the judgement will be upheld - that should keep us busy for the next 10 years....
Not this time, Amaral has a rock solid case.
Title: Re: Supreme Court rules against the McCanns in damages case.
Post by: misty on January 31, 2017, 04:45:14 PM
I hope Amaral is prepared for the barrage of negative media reports which will undoubtedly now be released.
Title: Re: Supreme Court rules against the McCanns in damages case.
Post by: John on January 31, 2017, 04:46:44 PM
Where are all the supporters now? Those who have been claiming the McCann's will win for months?
Hopefully the police can now open a conspiracy investigation to look into the Metodo 3 - Correia affair.
I am exceedingly sorry their appeal hasn't been upheld. I had hoped it would be. However, from the little I have learned about Portuguese process ... I am not in the least surprised at the outcome.
Title: Re: Supreme Court rules against the McCanns in damages case.
Post by: faithlilly on January 31, 2017, 05:03:41 PM
I am exceedingly sorry their appeal hasn't been upheld. I had hoped it would be. However, from the little I have learned about Portuguese process ... I am not in the least surprised at the outcome.
And there's your starter for ten.
Title: Re: Supreme Court rules against the McCanns in damages case.
Post by: John on January 31, 2017, 05:07:21 PM
It doesn't, which is why I asked the question about whom Misty thought was going to be on the receiving end of a barrage of negative reporting, and from whom.
As far as I can tell, the UK press are going to have to tread carefully in reporting this news accurately.
That leaves the Portuguese press. I cannot foresee the declaration of an open hunting season, but should it occur, I would assume it would be anti-McCann.
It is more likely that Amaral will be doing another round of interviews, whilst the McCanns will say very little.
Title: Re: Supreme Court rules against the McCanns in damages case.
Post by: Mr Gray on January 31, 2017, 05:28:44 PM
It doesn't, which is why I asked the question about whom Misty thought was going to be on the receiving end of a barrage of negative reporting, and from whom.
As far as I can tell, the UK press are going to have to tread carefully in reporting this news accurately.
That leaves the Portuguese press. I cannot foresee the declaration of an open hunting season, but should it occur, I would assume it would be anti-McCann.
It is more likely that Amaral will be doing another round of interviews, whilst the McCanns will say very little.
what makes you think the uk press will have to tread carfully....they have descibed him as a ex bungling cop in the past
Title: Re: Supreme Court rules against the McCanns in damages case.
Post by: misty on January 31, 2017, 05:32:24 PM
It doesn't, which is why I asked the question about whom Misty thought was going to be on the receiving end of a barrage of negative reporting, and from whom.
As far as I can tell, the UK press are going to have to tread carefully in reporting this news accurately.
That leaves the Portuguese press. I cannot foresee the declaration of an open hunting season, but should it occur, I would assume it would be anti-McCann.
It is more likely that Amaral will be doing another round of interviews, whilst the McCanns will say very little.
A long time ago it was reported that the UK police had investigated Amaral. Not so long ago the Sun pulled a story headed "Maddie cop's sick secret". It will be in the public interest to know what information about Amaral has been withheld pending the outcome of this libel trial. Freedom of speech and all that.
Title: Re: Supreme Court rules against the McCanns in damages case.
Post by: Alice Purjorick on January 31, 2017, 05:36:13 PM
I am exceedingly sorry their appeal hasn't been upheld. I had hoped it would be. However, from the little I have learned about Portuguese process ... I am not in the least surprised at the outcome.
I was running a sweepstake on who would be the first supporter to say that. I guess I'll have to pay out to whoever drew your name ................................ @)(++(*
Title: Re: Supreme Court rules against the McCanns in damages case.
Post by: John on January 31, 2017, 05:47:42 PM
Thinking back now to the original judgement by Judge Emilia Melo e Castro, she obviously got it so very wrong. Lets hope she undertakes some refresher courses or even retraining before she returns any more bad decisions.
If I were the McCann's I would be looking for a rebate from Dra Isabel Duarte whose advice got them into this shit in the first place.
Title: Re: Supreme Court rules against the McCanns in damages case.
Post by: Robittybob1 on January 31, 2017, 05:52:47 PM
A long time ago it was reported that the UK police had investigated Amaral. Not so long ago the Sun pulled a story headed "Maddie cop's sick secret". It will be in the public interest to know what information about Amaral has been withheld pending the outcome of this libel trial. Freedom of speech and all that.
We should be given a bit more freedom of speech on this forum too now, if Amaral's book is considered fair.
Title: Re: Supreme Court rules against the McCanns in damages case.
Post by: John on January 31, 2017, 05:54:20 PM
The quote I picked up "On April 19, 2016, the Court of Appeal of Lisbon recognized Gonçalo Amaral the constitutional right to express his opinion and revoked the decision that forced the former PJ inspector to pay one to the English couple.
"On April 19, 2016, the Court of Appeal of Lisbon recognized Gonçalo Amaral the constitutional right to express his opinion and revoked the decision that forced the former PJ inspector to pay one to the English couple. With the decision then handed down, Relação also revoked the ban on the commercialization of the book written by Gonçalo Amaral, which appeared in the sentence of the first instance."
OK he can sell a few more copies of his book which is available free on the internet. Sell more DVD which are already on Youtube.
No more interest payments. OK.
Title: Re: Supreme Court rules against the McCanns in damages case.
Post by: Robittybob1 on January 31, 2017, 06:11:32 PM
I hope he considers his last 8 years of "pain & suffering" worth the financial gain (notwithstanding all the debts he can now settle). The only compensation the McCanns truly want is the truth about what happened to Madeleine.
Title: Re: Supreme Court rules against the McCanns in damages case.
Post by: jassi on January 31, 2017, 06:15:37 PM
I hope he considers his last 8 years of "pain & suffering" worth the financial gain (notwithstanding all the debts he can now settle). The only compensation the McCanns truly want is the truth about what happened to Madeleine.
It must be a great relief.
Title: Re: Supreme Court rules against the McCanns in damages case.
Post by: Robittybob1 on January 31, 2017, 06:17:36 PM
It has certainly confused the standard of what is fair to be published in print and then to be be allowed to get away with it. Totally damaging statements were published under the heading of opinion, and freedom of expression. When does something become libel now? I suppose it has to be now shown that the person making the claims is lying.
Title: Re: Supreme Court rules against the McCanns in damages case.
Post by: Robittybob1 on January 31, 2017, 06:20:03 PM
Thinking back now to the original judgement by Judge Emilia Melo e Castro, she obviously got it so very wrong. Lets hope she undertakes some refresher courses or even retraining before she returns any more bad decisions.
If I were the McCann's I would be looking for a rebate from Dra Isabel Duarte whose advice got them into this shit in the first place.
When I was learning to do what I do two rules of thumb were thumped into us: Never go sue a foreigner in his own country. (unless it's libel in English courts pre 2013) Never try to sue a solicitor for incompetence. (see William Roache aka Ken Barlowe). Re Dra Duarte I bet she followed the age old principle illustrated by a joke told by a professor all those years ago. Bushman goes into a chambers in Sydney and says to the girl "I wanna see a one armed barrister Sheila?" "well yes we have one sir but he is not in today. Is it important he be one armed Mr Kerr is available now" "gotta be the one armed bloke, I'll see him when he's in, I've been in every bloody chambers in Sydney so far and all I have got is: on the one hand you can do.............. and on the other hand you can do.........................."
Title: Re: Supreme Court rules against the McCanns in damages case.
Post by: jassi on January 31, 2017, 06:21:55 PM
It has certainly confused the standard of what is fair to be published in print and then to be be allowed to get away with it. Totally damaging statements were published under the heading of opinion, and freedom of expression. When does something become libel now? I suppose it has to be now shown that the person making the claims is lying.
That's the principle that applies in several other countries.
Title: Re: Supreme Court rules against the McCanns in damages case.
Post by: Robittybob1 on January 31, 2017, 06:22:18 PM
It is an opinion of yours that "He certainly didn't understand the forensic evidence". You could never prove that statement is a fact. The fact that you claimed "certainty" proves it is opinion not fact.
Title: Re: Supreme Court rules against the McCanns in damages case.
Post by: jassi on January 31, 2017, 06:23:46 PM
I hope he considers his last 8 years of "pain & suffering" worth the financial gain (notwithstanding all the debts he can now settle). The only compensation the McCanns truly want is the truth about what happened to Madeleine.
So does G A .......
he seems to know the truth .............
thats why he wrote the book ........
Title: Re: Supreme Court rules against the McCanns in damages case.
Post by: Mr Gray on January 31, 2017, 06:28:11 PM
When I was learning to do what I do two rules of thumb were thumped into us: Never go sue a foreigner in his own country. (unless it's libel in English courts pre 2013) Never try to sue a solicitor for incompetence. (see William Roache aka Ken Barlowe). Re Dra Duarte I bet she followed the age old principle illustrated by a joke told by a professor all those years ago. Bushman goes into a chambers in Sydney and says to the girl "I wanna see a one armed barrister Sheila?" "well yes we have one sir but he is not in today. Is it important he be one armed Mr Kerr is available now" "gotta be the one armed bloke, I'll see him when he's in, I've been in every bloody chambers in Sydney so far and all I have got is: on the one hand you can do.............. and on the other hand you can do.........................."
I sued a solicitor and won
Title: Re: Supreme Court rules against the McCanns in damages case.
Post by: Robittybob1 on January 31, 2017, 06:29:18 PM
That's the principle that applies in several other countries.
We can't say what he wrote is the truth as they were merely his opinions not facts. When he says something is his opinion, how will we be able to show he is lying? Others can agree with Amaral but you can never say it is a fact, for to claim it is a fact you would need strong evidence.
Title: Re: Supreme Court rules against the McCanns in damages case.
Post by: Alfie on January 31, 2017, 06:35:37 PM
Now that he's rolling in the green stuff, I trust Amaral will pay back all those donors that gave so generously to his fund, or at least donate that money to a suitable charity, like Alcoholics Anonymous or something.
Title: Re: Supreme Court rules against the McCanns in damages case.
Post by: Angelo222 on January 31, 2017, 06:41:26 PM
I don't think he does no more than us He certainly didn't understand the forensic evidence
Are you trying to wind everyone up tonight so as to take away the pain of today's landslide victory for Amaral?
As police coordinator Amaral knew everything there was to know about the case, I can't wait to read his new book about events which followed the disappearance.
Title: Re: Supreme Court rules against the McCanns in damages case.
Post by: Alfie on January 31, 2017, 06:43:19 PM
Are you trying to wind everyone up tonight so as to take away the pain of today's landslide victory for Amaral?
As police coordinator Amaral knew everything there was to know about the case, I can't wait to read his new book about events which followed the disappearance.
As someone who firmly believes Madeleine left the apartment on her own and was abducted later, your enthusiasm for Amaral's knowledge and understanding of the forensics is somewhat baffling... &%+((£
Title: Re: Supreme Court rules against the McCanns in damages case.
Post by: Angelo222 on January 31, 2017, 06:44:07 PM
It has certainly confused the standard of what is fair to be published in print and then to be be allowed to get away with it. Totally damaging statements were published under the heading of opinion, and freedom of expression. When does something become libel now? I suppose it has to be now shown that the person making the claims is lying.
You forget that Amaral's thesis has not been disproven so nil ponts for libel.
Title: Re: Supreme Court rules against the McCanns in damages case.
Post by: Robittybob1 on January 31, 2017, 06:45:05 PM
Are you trying to wind everyone up tonight so as to take away the pain of today's landslide victory for Amaral?
As police coordinator Amaral knew everything there was to know about the case, I can't wait to read his new book about events which followed the disappearance.
Maybe Kate and Goncalo can jointly author the next book. I definitely read it then.
Title: Re: Supreme Court rules against the McCanns in damages case.
Post by: Alfie on January 31, 2017, 06:45:20 PM
This is probably a dumb question but does Amaral still believe the McCanns dunnit, or has he come to his senses by now?
Title: Re: Supreme Court rules against the McCanns in damages case.
Post by: Alfie on January 31, 2017, 06:48:40 PM
You forget that Amaral's thesis has not been disproven so nil ponts for libel.
So anyone in Portugal could write a most outrageous book of lies about Amaral and if they couldn't be disproved by Amaral then that wouldn't be libel, is that the gist of it?
Title: Re: Supreme Court rules against the McCanns in damages case.
Post by: Angelo222 on January 31, 2017, 06:49:05 PM
So anyone in Portugal could write a most outrageous book of lies about Amaral and if they couldn't be disproved by Amaral then that wouldn't be libel, is that the gist of it?
Isn't that what the British press do anyway?
Title: Re: Supreme Court rules against the McCanns in damages case.
Post by: Angelo222 on January 31, 2017, 06:51:33 PM
You forget that Amaral's thesis has not been disproven so nil ponts for libel.
No I'm looking at it as to whether it is opinion or not. A lie would only occur if you said it was your opinion, but in fact that was not really your opinion at all.
If I said "Gordon Brown kidnapped Madeleine McCann (that's my opinion)", but in fact I know Gordon Brown had a good alibi, I must be lying about my opinion. Then it becomes libel. I court would find that I must be lying.
Title: Re: Supreme Court rules against the McCanns in damages case.
Post by: Robittybob1 on January 31, 2017, 06:54:12 PM
Now, funnily enough that thought had already crossed my mind. What a thoroughly magnanimous gesture that would be, and one which would totally redeem him in my eyes (assuming it wasn't just a sarky fiver he bunged in).
Title: Re: Supreme Court rules against the McCanns in damages case.
Post by: Robittybob1 on January 31, 2017, 07:06:38 PM
Are you playing dumb? It. What he accuses them of in his book.
His opinions only. It might have felt like accusations but Amaral is only telling the story from the viewpoint of his opinion. Well that appears to be what the Supreme Court is telling us.
Title: Re: Supreme Court rules against the McCanns in damages case.
Post by: Alice Purjorick on January 31, 2017, 07:08:31 PM
What are you trying to prove? That you are an all get out finest kind sooper dooper s.o.b or that you don't know the meaning of rule of thumb and you are really Richard Cranium? Oh yeah what happened to "Amaral is Toast"?. Nuff said really.
Title: Re: Supreme Court rules against the McCanns in damages case.
Post by: G-Unit on January 31, 2017, 07:09:55 PM
Now, funnily enough that thought had already crossed my mind. What a thoroughly magnanimous gesture that would be, and one which would totally redeem him in my eyes (assuming it wasn't just a sarky fiver he bunged in).
A fund 'searching' for a child he thinks is dead? Why would he do that?
I don't think he needs redemption he has been exonerated by the courts. He will now have his funds released, interest paid for the time they have been unavailable to him, all his legal costs paid and, possibly, compensation for the injunction which denied him his funds and the injunctions which stopped the sale of his books.
Title: Re: Supreme Court rules against the McCanns in damages case.
Post by: Alice Purjorick on January 31, 2017, 07:10:39 PM
Are you trying to wind everyone up tonight so as to take away the pain of today's landslide victory for Amaral?
As police coordinator Amaral knew everything there was to know about the case, I can't wait to read his new book about events which followed the disappearance.
He didn't understand the forensic evidence Imo his book was rubbish as was most of what he has said since Maddie did not fall off the sofa and die
Title: Re: Supreme Court rules against the McCanns in damages case.
Post by: Miss Taken Identity on January 31, 2017, 07:12:41 PM
Well it will put Madeleine back into the headlines again at least.
Yes, little Maddie the real person of suffering in the McCann family. Or suffering /suffered the worst.
With no hope of getting a penny of the money her parents were claiming on her behalf for her suffering while on another money making scam were claiming Maddie 'came to no harm' It came down to this Maddie=£££$$$€€€
This was not a case for justice, not for Maddie, no not at all, it was about Money. Amaral wrote a book based on a police investigation where it would be inevitable that many police in a room looking at evidence, circumstantial included, concluded of a particular opinion of what happened- he reported in his book that the findings in a police report was xyz.
It is still held in many peoples minds that Kate's story of whooshing curtains and jemmied shutters was indeed an invention. It was also checked out that an abductor left not one mark on a white wall or ground whilst trying to get out of a small window carrying 'sleeping' child in a hurry. That is why so many people do not buy into their versions of accounts at the start of this, especially after it was discovered that a door was left unlocked- the children woke up crying some nights- and they were left alone SO it is not a nasty mind that would think of another scenario of Maddies disappearance.
If Maddie was abducted from the apartment then it would most likely have been through a unlocked door thus making her parents panic and inventing a story about whooshing curtains and jemmied shutters to deflect any blame/responsibility on them.
They also provided NO evidence of their claims about more suffering caused by the book than their child being 'abducted', they also provided NO evidence of 'people' who stopped looking for Maddie or would stop looking for her due to the contets of the book.
So with no evidence no case to answer!
Title: Re: Supreme Court rules against the McCanns in damages case.
Post by: Mr Gray on January 31, 2017, 07:16:44 PM
What are you trying to prove? That you are an all get out finest kind sooper dooper s.o.b or that you don't know the meaning of rule of thumb and you are really Richard Cranium? Oh yeah what happened to "Amaral is Toast"?. Nuff said really.
I'm not trying to prove anything I'm making a comment If a solicitor really screws up they are just as easy to sue as anyone else
Title: Re: Supreme Court rules against the McCanns in damages case.
Post by: Mr Gray on January 31, 2017, 07:17:42 PM
A fund 'searching' for a child he thinks is dead? Why would he do that?
I don't think he needs redemption he has been exonerated by the courts. He will now have his funds released, interest paid for the time they have been unavailable to him, all his legal costs paid and, possibly, compensation for the injunction which denied him his funds and the injunctions which stopped the sale of his books.
I don't care what you think, I was expressing my opinion that such a magnanimous action would redeem him in MY eyes. Obviously pigs are more likely to fly first, but let's not forget his lawyer even conceded that Madeleine may not be dead, if I recall correctly so why shouldn't he donate to a fund that might at least continue to search for the truth once the official investigation is over, even if it confirms that Madeleine is no longer alive?
Title: Re: Supreme Court rules against the McCanns in damages case.
Post by: xtina on January 31, 2017, 07:22:53 PM
Now, funnily enough that thought had already crossed my mind. What a thoroughly magnanimous gesture that would be, and one which would totally redeem him in my eyes (assuming it wasn't just a sarky fiver he bunged in).
zilch is more appropriate .....
why would he donate .........when thy used it to destroy him ....and make hi mm suffer...
fortunately ...it back fired
all brought on by themselves.....they gave it publicity money could not buy
Title: Re: Supreme Court rules against the McCanns in damages case.
Post by: Alfie on January 31, 2017, 07:27:46 PM
Blood markers on the wall behind the sofa Other than her sleep problems, it is possible that Madeleine suffered from an illness, a hypothesis that was never confirmed. Immediately after the discovery of traces of blood in the apartment, the mother, in the course of an interview with a Portuguese magazine, revealed that Madeleine had a nose bleed. But the bleeding could be associated with certain pathologies.
that is a blatant lie from his book.......those marks were never identified as blood
Title: Re: Supreme Court rules against the McCanns in damages case.
Post by: xtina on January 31, 2017, 07:53:20 PM
whatever davel .............you don't know it isn't do you
if you dont know its the truth you cant claim it is the truth
Title: Re: Supreme Court rules against the McCanns in damages case.
Post by: G-Unit on January 31, 2017, 08:27:29 PM
What a strange headline, considering they already have.
Portugal Supreme Court rules McCanns cannot sue detective for libel over The Truth of the Lie book http://www.pressgazette.co.uk/the-lad-bible-seeks-40-more-uk-staff-in-recruitment-drive-ahead-of-global-expansion/
Title: Re: Supreme Court rules against the McCanns in damages case.
Post by: Miss Taken Identity on January 31, 2017, 08:37:06 PM
Ypu have seen the cite showing the source of that theory, why do you continue to perpetuate the myth?
Indeed! his theory...no more no less credable than abduction through a small window n the space pf 5 minutes?... It seems a bit strange that Alfie was asking everyone about their theories in an other thread... to the point of goading one member. So theories are not theories unless they are true... oh spinning heads in different directions here... wax on was off!
But anyway, I have an idea theory...I can't prove it though...hmmm
Title: Re: Supreme Court rules against the McCanns in damages case.
Post by: carlymichelle on January 31, 2017, 08:41:09 PM
@)(++(* 8@??)( AWESOME NEWS TO WAKE UP TO HERE
Title: Re: Supreme Court rules against the McCanns in damages case.
Post by: carlymichelle on January 31, 2017, 08:42:26 PM
technically couldnt he now sue bloggers and forum posteres who have tarnished his name too??
Title: Re: Supreme Court rules against the McCanns in damages case.
Post by: Mr Gray on January 31, 2017, 08:43:30 PM
"According to Encarnacao the child's death must have resulted from a fall behind the sofa" THE TRUTH OF THE LIE.
Do you have a cite for your oft repeated allegation that it was 'Amaral's theory'?
So are you saying Amaral didn't believe Madeleine died falling off the sofa? What did he think happened then?
Title: Re: Supreme Court rules against the McCanns in damages case.
Post by: Alfie on January 31, 2017, 09:26:39 PM
If it is a myth that Amaral thinks Madeleine fell off the sofa as part of his theory what did he mean when he wrote this in his book?
The role of this sofa is important if you imagine the hypothesis, not of an abduction, but of an accident inside the apartment itself. If it was really away from the wall before the abduction, it may be that Madeleine had climbed onto it and fallen down the other side.
Title: Re: Supreme Court rules against the McCanns in damages case.
Post by: Miss Taken Identity on January 31, 2017, 09:30:03 PM
I haven't a clue but Mr Amaral just doesn't seem the bitter sort.Who could blame him though.
Yes I agree. He would gain nothing, he has been vindicated through the courts, he has proved to be the David here, and what a sling shot from the go fund me page.
I am not going to gloat about the McCanns losing, I am saddened that they took this route it lost them a lot of initial support. and Maddie's fate remains unresolved and no one talks about her as he parents hog all the news, with her little baby picture of course. [Helps with the sympathy angle).
Good news for Amaral but still sad day.
Title: Re: Supreme Court rules against the McCanns in damages case.
Post by: G-Unit on January 31, 2017, 09:37:27 PM
Apparently you can tell any manner of lie about anyone in Portugal and if they can't prove you're lying you can get away with it. Seems fair enough doesn't it?
Justice has prevailed. The original judgement that Amaral breached Judicial Secrecy and failed to uphold the presumption of innocence has been rejected by both higher courts. The attempt by the McCanns to stop any theory except their own being heard has failed.
Title: Re: Supreme Court rules against the McCanns in damages case.
Post by: carlymichelle on January 31, 2017, 09:40:35 PM
Justice has prevailed. The original judgement that Amaral breached Judicial Secrecy and failed to uphold the presumption of innocence has been rejected by both higher courts. The attempt by the McCanns to stop any theory except their own being heard has failed.
exactly they wasted 10 years of the twins lives in court and for what??
Title: Re: Supreme Court rules against the McCanns in damages case.
Post by: Alfie on January 31, 2017, 09:41:25 PM
Justice has prevailed. The original judgement that Amaral breached Judicial Secrecy and failed to uphold the presumption of innocence has been rejected by both higher courts. The attempt by the McCanns to stop any theory except their own being heard has failed.
That's your take on it. My take on it is that the McCanns have failed in their concerted and hard fought battle to put an end to the promulgating of lies about them in Amaral's book and to get justice for themselves and for Madeleine.
Title: Re: Supreme Court rules against the McCanns in damages case.
Post by: stephen25000 on January 31, 2017, 09:42:53 PM
Well they have wasted money on pupswing Amaral, which could gave been spent 'searching' for their daughter.
Their arrogance and quest for revenge was their undoing.
exactly and trying to blame anyone but themselves
Title: Re: Supreme Court rules against the McCanns in damages case.
Post by: Alfie on January 31, 2017, 09:44:00 PM
Furthermore, Amaral is now a very rich and famous man, thanks to his ruthless exploitation of a missing child and her family. No doubt he will seek to enrich himself further off Madeleine's disapearance by writing more books and making further chat show appearances.
Title: Re: Supreme Court rules against the McCanns in damages case.
Post by: jassi on January 31, 2017, 09:44:36 PM
That's your take on it. My take on it is that the McCanns have failed in their concerted and hard fought battle to put an end to the promulgating of lies about them in Amaral's book and to get justice for themselves and for Madeleine.
Another of these alternative facts. Almost worthy of Mitchell himself. I am impressed.
Title: Re: Supreme Court rules against the McCanns in damages case.
Post by: carlymichelle on January 31, 2017, 09:44:56 PM
Furthermore, Amaral is now a very rich and famous man, thanks to his ruthless exploitation of a missing child and her family. No doubt he will seek to enrich himself further off Madeleine's disapearance by writing further books and making further chat show appearances.
good for him if he does
Title: Re: Supreme Court rules against the McCanns in damages case.
Post by: Alfie on January 31, 2017, 09:46:07 PM
Another of these alternative facts. Almost worthy of Mitchell himself. I am impressed.
It's a different viewpoint, we all have them and we are all entitled to voice them (provided they don't libel anybody - after all we're not in Portgual are we?!)
Title: Re: Supreme Court rules against the McCanns in damages case.
Post by: Miss Taken Identity on January 31, 2017, 09:50:48 PM
That's your take on it. My take on it is that the McCanns have failed in their concerted and hard fought battle to put an end to the promulgating of lies about them in Amaral's book and to get justice for themselves and for Madeleine.
The Mccanns made him more famous than he was by doing what they did- not everyone who had access to his book believed the theory he mentions they probably had a few other different theories...
What justice would you be talking about from Maddies point of view? is she alive ?can she be found ?did her parents do EVERYTHING to pervent her disappearance from public view? did they hinder a police investigation?
Title: Re: Supreme Court rules against the McCanns in damages case.
Post by: G-Unit on January 31, 2017, 09:58:19 PM
Yes I agree. He would gain nothing, he has been vindicated through the courts, he has proved to be the David here, and what a sling shot from the go fund me page.
I am not going to gloat about the McCanns losing, I am saddened that they took this route it lost them a lot of initial support. and Maddie's fate remains unresolved and no one talks about her as he parents hog all the news, with her little baby picture of course. [Helps with the sympathy angle).
Good news for Amaral but still sad day.
It's a disaster all round. Amaral has emerged the winner thanks to the public funding his appeal, but has had years of worry and hardship.
The McCanns have depleted the Fund set up to search for their missing daughter by using it to try to bury the conclusions of the Portuguese investigation as at September 2007.
Title: Re: Supreme Court rules against the McCanns in damages case.
Post by: Alice Purjorick on January 31, 2017, 10:09:51 PM
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-4176546/Madeleine-McCann-s-parents-lose-appeal.html A source close to the family said: 'It’s not good news. We just don’t know what to do but we need to sit down with our lawyer and discuss it.
and after a short pause he said................................. "That'll be cash on the barrel head son"
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PRhCSWGS5qI
Title: Re: Supreme Court rules against the McCanns in damages case.
Post by: Alice Purjorick on January 31, 2017, 10:13:21 PM
Furthermore, Amaral is now a very rich and famous man, thanks to his ruthless exploitation of a missing child and her family. No doubt he will seek to enrich himself further off Madeleine's disapearance by writing more books and making further chat show appearances.
See Jassi's post above this and just below your post.
Title: Re: Supreme Court rules against the McCanns in damages case.
Post by: G-Unit on January 31, 2017, 10:15:37 PM
That's your take on it. My take on it is that the McCanns have failed in their concerted and hard fought battle to put an end to the promulgating of lies about them in Amaral's book and to get justice for themselves and for Madeleine.
There are facts and there are theories. The McCanns promoted one theory and Amaral promoted another. Either could be right or both could be wrong; no-one knows. Consequently we can't judge who, if anyone, is lying.
Title: Re: Supreme Court rules against the McCanns in damages case.
Post by: Alfie on January 31, 2017, 10:25:23 PM
There are facts and there are theories. The McCanns promoted one theory and Amaral promoted another. Either could be right or both could be wrong; no-one knows. Consequently we can't judge who, if anyone, is lying.
We can have an opinion on it and I have voiced mine, hope that's still permissable despite the latest ruling?
Title: Re: Supreme Court rules against the McCanns in damages case.
Post by: Mr Gray on January 31, 2017, 10:27:09 PM
There are facts and there are theories. The McCanns promoted one theory and Amaral promoted another. Either could be right or both could be wrong; no-one knows. Consequently we can't judge who, if anyone, is lying.
we know taht some of what amaral wrote is not true....
Blood markers on the wall behind the sofa Other than her sleep problems, it is possible that Madeleine suffered from an illness, a hypothesis that was never confirmed. Immediately after the discovery of traces of blood in the apartment, the mother, in the course of an interview with a Portuguese magazine, revealed that Madeleine had a nose bleed. But the bleeding could be associated with certain pathologies.
fron ch 4.....no blood was identified on the wall
Title: Re: Supreme Court rules against the McCanns in damages case.
Post by: stephen25000 on January 31, 2017, 10:31:28 PM
we know taht some of what amaral wrote is not true....
Blood markers on the wall behind the sofa Other than her sleep problems, it is possible that Madeleine suffered from an illness, a hypothesis that was never confirmed. Immediately after the discovery of traces of blood in the apartment, the mother, in the course of an interview with a Portuguese magazine, revealed that Madeleine had a nose bleed. But the bleeding could be associated with certain pathologies.
fron ch 4.....no blood was identified on the wall
Nothing you can type, will make a blind bit of difference.
The Mccann's have lost.
Title: Re: Supreme Court rules against the McCanns in damages case.
Post by: Mr Gray on January 31, 2017, 10:33:06 PM
we know taht some of what amaral wrote is not true....
Blood markers on the wall behind the sofa Other than her sleep problems, it is possible that Madeleine suffered from an illness, a hypothesis that was never confirmed. Immediately after the discovery of traces of blood in the apartment, the mother, in the course of an interview with a Portuguese magazine, revealed that Madeleine had a nose bleed. But the bleeding could be associated with certain pathologies.
fron ch 4.....no blood was identified on the wall
It no longer matters what Amaral said in his book, though, does it? What matters is the judgement of the Portuguese courts. They have decided that he was exercising his right to freedom of speech and that in doing so he didn't breach the rights of the McCanns or their children. End of.
Title: Re: Supreme Court rules against the McCanns in damages case.
Post by: carlymichelle on January 31, 2017, 10:46:13 PM
We don't need anyone's sympathy, Carly. This decision sends a bad message to those searching for Madeleine & anyone else seeking justice in Portugal.
What 'bad message to those searching for Madeleine'? Who are they and what message have they received? Justice has been achieved; Amaral didn't breach judicial secrecy or the McCann's right to the presumption of innocence, which is what the first court said he was guilty of.
Title: Re: Supreme Court rules against the McCanns in damages case.
Post by: carlymichelle on January 31, 2017, 10:55:31 PM
What 'bad message to those searching for Madeleine'? Who are they and what message have they received? Justice has been achieved; Amaral didn't breach judicial secrecy or the McCann's right to the presumption of innocence, which is what the first court said he was guilty of.
exactly even if the mcanns and supporters dont like it he is entitled to his opinion
Title: Re: Supreme Court rules against the McCanns in damages case.
Post by: misty on January 31, 2017, 11:00:39 PM
What 'bad message to those searching for Madeleine'? Who are they and what message have they received? Justice has been achieved; Amaral didn't breach judicial secrecy or the McCann's right to the presumption of innocence, which is what the first court said he was guilty of.
The bad message it sends is that if the people responsible for Madeleine's disappearance are caught they are highly unlikely to be successfully prosecuted. The presumption of the McCanns right to innocence has been trashed & will form a suitable part of any defence argument in such circumstances. I fail to understand why you feel justice has been served.
Title: Re: Supreme Court rules against the McCanns in damages case.
Post by: G-Unit on January 31, 2017, 11:05:13 PM
It's the end of the court case against Amaral. It's the end of the McCann's attempts to silence him. It's the end of any hope they had of adding his earnings to the Fund. Depending on the costs they face, it could be the end of the Fund itself.
Title: Re: Supreme Court rules against the McCanns in damages case.
Post by: Eleanor on January 31, 2017, 11:09:03 PM
This is not going to end well.
Title: Re: Supreme Court rules against the McCanns in damages case.
Post by: Mr Gray on January 31, 2017, 11:09:42 PM
I feel sorry for the twins and I think it's an absolute disgrace that there is stil so much unnecessary nastiness towards there parents on the net
We are being lectured that we must accept the rule of law and amaral is entitled to his opinion
Well respect the rule of law as it applies to the McCanns They have not been found guilty of any offence Stop treating them as if they are
Title: Re: Supreme Court rules against the McCanns in damages case.
Post by: carlymichelle on January 31, 2017, 11:11:11 PM
It's the end of the court case against Amaral. It's the end of the McCann's attempts to silence him. It's the end of any hope they had of adding his earnings to the Fund. Depending on the costs they face, it could be the end of the Fund itself.
It's a shame it's not the end of all the vile nastiness on the net
Title: Re: Supreme Court rules against the McCanns in damages case.
Post by: Alfie on January 31, 2017, 11:13:38 PM
The bad message it sends is that if the people responsible for Madeleine's disappearance are caught they are highly unlikely to be successfully prosecuted. The presumption of the McCanns right to innocence has been trashed & will form a suitable part of any defence argument in such circumstances. I fail to understand why you feel justice has been served.
I don't follow your reasoning at all, sorry. The first judge thought Amaral had an obligation, as a retired policeman, to uphold the presumption of innocence. The higher courts said he did not have this obligation.
If anyone was to be arrested and tried in connection to this case how they could use that in their defense escapes me.
Justice has been served because the first judge based her conclusions solely on an argument that Amaral had breached obligations arising from his former employment. She was wrong.
Title: Re: Supreme Court rules against the McCanns in damages case.
Post by: misty on January 31, 2017, 11:24:40 PM
I don't follow your reasoning at all, sorry. The first judge thought Amaral had an obligation, as a retired policeman, to uphold the presumption of innocence. The higher courts said he did not have this obligation.
If anyone was to be arrested and tried in connection to this case how they could use that in their defense escapes me.
Justice has been served because the first judge based her conclusions solely on an argument that Amaral had breached obligations arising from his former employment. She was wrong.
If you cannot see that providing a publisher with data contained in files governed by Judicial Secrecy at the time was not a breach of his employment or retirement obligations then it appears you have a different interpretation of Portuguese law to mine.
Title: Re: Supreme Court rules against the McCanns in damages case.
Post by: Alfie on January 31, 2017, 11:26:59 PM
If and when it is confirmed that someone other than the McCanns were responsible for Madeleine's disappearance will this verdict still be viewed as justice served?
Title: Re: Supreme Court rules against the McCanns in damages case.
Post by: G-Unit on January 31, 2017, 11:27:45 PM
I feel sorry for the twins and I think it's an absolute disgrace that there is stil so much unnecessary nastiness towards there parents on the net
We are being lectured that we must accept the rule of law and amaral is entitled to his opinion
Well respect the rule of law as it applies to the McCanns They have not been found guilty of any offence Stop treating them as if they are
While most of the nastiness aimed at Amaral has been written in English, it's quite possible that his daughter can understand it. He has not been found guilty of any wrong doing in connection with this case. Hopefully people will now leave him alone.
Title: Re: Supreme Court rules against the McCanns in damages case.
Post by: G-Unit on January 31, 2017, 11:31:09 PM
If you cannot see that providing a publisher with data contained in files governed by Judicial Secrecy at the time was not a breach of his employment or retirement obligations then it appears you have a different interpretation of Portuguese law to mine.
Your interpretation seems to differ from that of Portugal's senior judges too. How patronising is that!
Title: Re: Supreme Court rules against the McCanns in damages case.
Post by: Alice Purjorick on January 31, 2017, 11:33:52 PM
If you cannot see that providing a publisher with data contained in files governed by Judicial Secrecy at the time was not a breach of his employment or retirement obligations then it appears you have a different interpretation of Portuguese law to mine.
That wasn't what was being tried. Show us where it is in the writ.
Title: Re: Supreme Court rules against the McCanns in damages case.
Post by: misty on January 31, 2017, 11:36:06 PM
Your interpretation seems to differ from that of Portugal's senior judges too. How patronising is that!
It doesn't mean the Supreme court produced the correct judgement according to their own laws, though. If the case was so black & white, the first instance judge would never have ruled as she did.
Title: Re: Supreme Court rules against the McCanns in damages case.
Post by: Alice Purjorick on January 31, 2017, 11:37:22 PM
If and when it is confirmed that someone other than the McCanns were responsible for Madeleine's disappearance will this verdict still be viewed as justice served?
Tomorrow is another day said Dougal.........................and it was
Title: Re: Supreme Court rules against the McCanns in damages case.
Post by: misty on January 31, 2017, 11:40:19 PM
That wasn't what was being tried. Show us where it is in the writ.
The right to freedom of speech comes with certain responsibilities & restrictions. Amaral breached those responsibilities imo but it would appear Portuguese justice ignores the writings of Article 10 ECHR as & when it suits.
Title: Re: Supreme Court rules against the McCanns in damages case.
Post by: Alice Purjorick on January 31, 2017, 11:43:10 PM
It doesn't mean the Supreme court produced the correct judgement according to their own laws, though. If the case was so black & white, the first instance judge would never have ruled as she did.
The Court of Appeal did not agree with the judge of the first instance; the Supreme Court it seems upheld the Court of Appeal's ruling. That seems to be simple enough.... the first judge made a mistake.
Title: Re: Supreme Court rules against the McCanns in damages case.
Post by: Alfie on January 31, 2017, 11:45:29 PM
The right to freedom of speech comes with certain responsibilities & restrictions. Amaral breached those responsibilities imo but it would appear Portuguese justice ignores the writings of Article 10 ECHR as & when it suits.
In Portugal the freedom to say what you like about another even if it is unproven or untrue is more important than the right not to be smeared and lied about, that's what it boils down to. Amaral fans think that's just, McCanns supporters think it's unjust, and never the twain shall meet.
Title: Re: Supreme Court rules against the McCanns in damages case.
Post by: carlymichelle on January 31, 2017, 11:47:27 PM
The Court of Appeal did not agree with the judge of the first instance; the Supreme Court it seems upheld the Court of Appeal's ruling. That seems to be simple enough.... the first judge made a mistake.
so in other words GA doesnt have to answer to anyon including the mcanns ?{)(**
Title: Re: Supreme Court rules against the McCanns in damages case.
Post by: misty on January 31, 2017, 11:49:32 PM
The Court of Appeal did not agree with the judge of the first instance; the Supreme Court it seems upheld the Court of Appeal's ruling. That seems to be simple enough.... the first judge made a mistake.
The judges in various courts seem to have made a lot of "mistakes" in this case, don't they? The law has no consistency.
Title: Re: Supreme Court rules against the McCanns in damages case.
Post by: Alice Purjorick on January 31, 2017, 11:53:00 PM
The right to freedom of speech comes with certain responsibilities & restrictions. Amaral breached those responsibilities imo but it would appear Portuguese justice ignores the writings of Article 10 ECHR as & when it suits.
I expect they do para 2 of the article being such one could drive a Liebherr dragline through it. But in this instance the McCanns lost their case Sr Amaral is probably placing an order for a Maserati Ghibli and most of the world's population will not give a stuff or say "remind me, what were the rules of engagement here?"
Title: Re: Supreme Court rules against the McCanns in damages case.
Post by: G-Unit on January 31, 2017, 11:53:44 PM
If and when it is confirmed that someone other than the McCanns were responsible for Madeleine's disappearance will this verdict still be viewed as justice served?
Amaral's opinions may be wrong, but the case wasn't about that. It was about his right to express his opinions. The verdict was that he had that right, so justice was served.
Title: Re: Supreme Court rules against the McCanns in damages case.
Post by: pathfinder73 on January 31, 2017, 11:54:48 PM
(https://pbs.twimg.com/media/C3iGD4bWcAAqnHW.jpg)
Title: Re: Supreme Court rules against the McCanns in damages case.
Post by: Alice Purjorick on January 31, 2017, 11:57:22 PM
In Portugal the freedom to say what you like about another even if it is unproven or untrue is more important than the right not to be smeared and lied about, that's what it boils down to. Amaral fans think that's just, McCanns supporters think it's unjust, and never the twain shall meet.
@)(++(* are they like the Amaral Campers ?
Title: Re: Supreme Court rules against the McCanns in damages case.
Post by: faithlilly on February 01, 2017, 12:08:04 AM
Title: Re: Supreme Court rules against the McCanns in damages case.
Post by: Brietta on February 01, 2017, 12:34:03 AM
Official Find Madeleine Campaign 5 hrs ·
Statement from Gerry and Kate McCann 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 https://www.facebook.com/Official.Find.Madeleine.Campaign/
Title: Re: Supreme Court rules against the McCanns in damages case.
Post by: John on February 01, 2017, 01:15:42 AM
Statement from Gerry and Kate McCann 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 https://www.facebook.com/Official.Find.Madeleine.Campaign/
I think the implications are rather obvious.
Head down and hope Amaral is feeling charitable.
Title: Re: Supreme Court rules against the McCanns in damages case.
Post by: Brietta on February 01, 2017, 01:34:18 AM
I rather think it will be heads up and expectation of what they know all too well are the capabilities of the man. In my opinion expectation or hope of charitable feeling from that quarter is futile. If Amaral does not go about making more mischief it will not be through charity ... it will be for his own reasons. Maybe along the lines of you can't get blood out of a stone? Mind you, there are those who might not object to seeing the family out on the street ... we might get the opportunity to see if Amaral is one of them.
The ball is in his court ... at the moment.
Title: Re: Supreme Court rules against the McCanns in damages case.
Post by: G-Unit on February 01, 2017, 06:42:21 AM
The McCanns appear to have run out of courts.
Title: Re: Supreme Court rules against the McCanns in damages case.
Post by: Robittybob1 on February 01, 2017, 07:00:46 AM
It no longer matters what Amaral said in his book, though, does it? What matters is the judgement of the Portuguese courts. They have decided that he was exercising his right to freedom of speech and that in doing so he didn't breach the rights of the McCanns or their children. End of.
Do you think the same decision would have been made in other European countries. I hope they take it further. It is unjust in my opinion.
Title: Re: Supreme Court rules against the McCanns in damages case.
Post by: Mr Gray on February 01, 2017, 07:03:18 AM
It is a massive massive victory for injustice
Title: Re: Supreme Court rules against the McCanns in damages case.
Post by: Robittybob1 on February 01, 2017, 07:03:27 AM
Do you think the same decision would have been made in other European countries. I hope they take it further. It is unjust in my opinion.
I had no idea what the verdict was going to be in Portugal, let alone speculating about other countries. They can't take it further than the Supreme Court, the process is over. My opinion is that it would have been unjust to prevent other theories about the disappearance of Madeleine from being heard.
Title: Re: Supreme Court rules against the McCanns in damages case.
Post by: carlymichelle on February 01, 2017, 07:32:35 AM
I had no idea what the verdict was going to be in Portugal, let alone speculating about other countries. They can't take it further than the Supreme Court, the process is over. My opinion is that it would have been unjust to prevent other theories about the disappearance of Madeleine from being heard.
i read something about how they could take it to the euro court? that is unlikley right??
Title: Re: Supreme Court rules against the McCanns in damages case.
Post by: Robittybob1 on February 01, 2017, 07:35:28 AM
I had no idea what the verdict was going to be in Portugal, let alone speculating about other countries. They can't take it further than the Supreme Court, the process is over. My opinion is that it would have been unjust to prevent other theories about the disappearance of Madeleine from being heard.
Was it the provocative nature of the book's title then "The truth of the lie" Nothing has been proven, I can't see how one side is allowed to proclaim their theory is the truth and the other side is a lie.
i read something about how they could take it to the euro court? that is unlikley right??
I hope they do for what they have got at the moment is a terrible judgement. It will be most interesting to see how the Supreme Court justifies their decision.
Title: Re: Supreme Court rules against the McCanns in damages case.
Post by: Mr Gray on February 01, 2017, 07:39:25 AM
I had no idea what the verdict was going to be in Portugal, let alone speculating about other countries. They can't take it further than the Supreme Court, the process is over. My opinion is that it would have been unjust to prevent other theories about the disappearance of Madeleine from being heard.
You obviously haven't listened to amaral He stated things as facts What he has done is totally unjust
Title: Re: Supreme Court rules against the McCanns in damages case.
Post by: stephen25000 on February 01, 2017, 07:53:38 AM
Was it the provocative nature of the book's title then "The truth of the lie" Nothing has been proven, I can't see how one side is allowed to proclaim their theory is the truth and the other side is a lie.
I hope they do for what they have got at the moment is a terrible judgement. It will be most interesting to see how the Supreme Court justifies their decision.
That is a matter of opinion, as to it being a 'terrible judgement'.
As far as I am concerned, the law was upheld and justice was done.
After all, Rob, no one forced the McCann's into their action against Amaral. It was a matter of their choice, and the money could have been spent in 'searching for their beloved daughter'.
Title: Re: Supreme Court rules against the McCanns in damages case.
Post by: Mr Gray on February 01, 2017, 08:01:54 AM
That is a matter of opinion, as to it being a 'terrible judgement'.
As far as I am concerned, the law was upheld and justice was done.
After all, Rob, no one forced the McCann's into their action against Amaral. It was a matter of their choice, and the money could have been spent in 'searching for their beloved daughter'.
What a nasty post Referring to poor Maddie sarcastically as their beloved daughter
Title: Re: Supreme Court rules against the McCanns in damages case.
Post by: stephen25000 on February 01, 2017, 08:06:41 AM
That is a matter of opinion, as to it being a 'terrible judgement'.
As far as I am concerned, the law was upheld and justice was done.
After all, Rob, no one forced the McCann's into their action against Amaral. It was a matter of their choice, and the money could have been spent in 'searching for their beloved daughter'.
What a nasty post Referring to poor Maddie sarcastically as their beloved daughter
They referred to Madeleine that way themselves.
So let's hear a logical response as to why they didn't use the money they spent in courts, instead, 'searching' for Madeleine.
Title: Re: Supreme Court rules against the McCanns in damages case.
Post by: Mr Gray on February 01, 2017, 08:09:59 AM
What a nasty post Referring to poor Maddie sarcastically as their beloved daughter
They referred to Madeleine that way themselves.
So let's hear a logical response as to why they didn't use the money they spent in courts, instead, 'searching' for Madeleine.
i hopee posters who say that GA is corrupt etc or the usal stuff are warned now because 2 courts have said he is allowed his opinion in this case and if he wants to write books do tv interviews or whatever he is allowed too without being bullied online he isnt responsible for whatever befell maddie we know who is
Title: Re: Supreme Court rules against the McCanns in damages case.
Post by: Mr Gray on February 01, 2017, 08:14:37 AM
i hopee posters who say that GA is corrupt etc or the usal stuff are warned now because 2 courts have said he is allowed his opinion in this case and if he wants to write books do tv interviews or whatever he is allowed too without being bullied online
I can say what I like about amaral within the law Such as he is a convicted criminal
Title: Re: Supreme Court rules against the McCanns in damages case.
Post by: Alfie on February 01, 2017, 08:15:23 AM
Face facts folks - sometimes the bad guys win, as they clearly have done in this case. Sad, but nothing to be done. Time to move on for all concerned if possible, IMO.
Title: Re: Supreme Court rules against the McCanns in damages case.
Post by: Alfie on February 01, 2017, 08:18:50 AM
I had no idea what the verdict was going to be in Portugal, let alone speculating about other countries. They can't take it further than the Supreme Court, the process is over. My opinion is that it would have been unjust to prevent other theories about the disappearance of Madeleine from being heard.
So if you were in their shoes (which obviously you never would be as you're a perfect parent) you would support any one involved in the investigation into your child's disappearance to write a book pointing the finger at you or your family would you?
Title: Re: Supreme Court rules against the McCanns in damages case.
Post by: stephen25000 on February 01, 2017, 08:18:59 AM
So if you were in their shoes (which obviously you never would be as you're a perfect parent) you would support any one involved in the investigation into your child's disappearance to write a book pointing the finger at you or your family would you?
Sorry, Alfie, I can't be bothered with your 'what if' questions today. The McCanns thought they could silence Amaral, they were wrong.
Title: Re: Supreme Court rules against the McCanns in damages case.
Post by: Brietta on February 01, 2017, 08:43:24 AM
Face facts folks - sometimes the bad guys win, as they clearly have done in this case. Sad, but nothing to be done. Time to move on for all concerned if possible, IMO.
My gut reaction would be to take it to the European Court ... but what really is the point?
What has been forgotten in the elation of the victory of the right to freedom of expression over the right not to be defamed with what is in my opinion one of the most nefarious defamation claims possible is that now ... in Portugal ... it would seem that Madeleine McCann is considered officially dead.
Not only is that indecent haste to write off a life with no evidence of death, that is risible when one considers that the Policia Judiciaria and Scotland Yard have not yet written her off as dead.
Title: Re: Supreme Court rules against the McCanns in damages case.
Post by: carlymichelle on February 01, 2017, 08:43:39 AM
Sorry, Alfie, I can't be bothered with your 'what if' questions today. The McCanns thought they could silence Amaral, they were wrong.
But were they wrong to even try? Bearing in mind that they may very well be innocent of all the accusations in Amaral's book? Of course you can't be bothered giving me a straight answer, it's quite obvious why.
Title: Re: Supreme Court rules against the McCanns in damages case.
Post by: slartibartfast on February 01, 2017, 09:02:05 AM
Evidence for the statement made in the first sentence please ... or remove it.
That is a ridiculous remark and it sounds quite vindictive.
If the money spent on chasing Amaral through the courts had been spent on searching for Madeleine, don't you agree that would have been the right thing to do ?
Title: Re: Supreme Court rules against the McCanns in damages case.
Post by: faithlilly on February 01, 2017, 09:32:17 AM
But were they wrong to even try? Bearing in mind that they may very well be innocent of all the accusations in Amaral's book? Of course you can't be bothered giving me a straight answer, it's quite obvious why.
Were their hurt feeling more important than funding the search for their daughter ( and remember that when they started this action their was no investigation) ?
Title: Re: Supreme Court rules against the McCanns in damages case.
Post by: Brietta on February 01, 2017, 09:38:39 AM
so basically davel isnt allowed to bring up other stuff about GA that doesnt relate to maddie on this forum is he??
You mean is it wrong to mention that Amaral is a convicted criminal? I don't think so.
Is Portugal covered by the Rehabilitation of Offenders Act 1974?
The fact is that whether or not this forum can be thought of as 'media organisation' when making reference to Amaral's conviction for perjury / falsifying documents, inclusion of the word "spent" would be admissible.
Quote It is not a criminal offence to mention a ‘spent’ conviction so the 1974 Act does not impose a criminal penalty on either individual journalists or media organisations. http://www.inbrief.co.uk/media-law/reporting-on-spent-convictions/
It is instructive to witness those supporters of freedom of expression wriggling on the hook of cover up and censorship though.
Title: Re: Supreme Court rules against the McCanns in damages case.
Post by: Brietta on February 01, 2017, 09:44:35 AM
That is a ridiculous remark and it sounds quite vindictive.
If the money spent on chasing Amaral through the courts had been spent on searching for Madeleine, don't you agree that would have been the right thing to do ?
Please be kind enough to provide proof of your unsubstantiated claims ... or desist.
Title: Re: Supreme Court rules against the McCanns in damages case.
Post by: stephen25000 on February 01, 2017, 09:46:41 AM
Were their hurt feeling more important than funding the search for their daughter ( and remember that when they started this action their was no investigation) ?
Exactly, no investigation with little prospect of one at the time, but a real danger that in the country where she went missing everyone would be brainwashed into believing Amaral's thesis was the truth and that Madeleine was dead and no longer findable. Were they wrong to stand up against him and his book in an effort to try and stop him from his campaign against them and their daughter? Let's not forget, doubter logic dictates if they don't sue, it must be true, so had they not fought him in the courts you would have seen this as further evidence of their guilt, would you not?
Title: Re: Supreme Court rules against the McCanns in damages case.
Post by: Eleanor on February 01, 2017, 09:56:12 AM
Okay. Enough of the sniping. Thank You.
Title: Re: Supreme Court rules against the McCanns in damages case.
Post by: Robittybob1 on February 01, 2017, 09:59:49 AM
Would hardly be publicity for Madeleine, unless you believe that all publicity is good. They might also be banned from Portugal, which would put a stop to Kate's alleged little pilgrimages.
Title: Re: Supreme Court rules against the McCanns in damages case.
Post by: Robittybob1 on February 01, 2017, 10:07:24 AM
If they are in England and the Court in Portugal has found against them, can they just ignore the court order?
It will be interesting to see what happens I don't think the McCanns have a lot of money They may be able to declare bankruptcy and he won't get a penny off them
Title: Re: Supreme Court rules against the McCanns in damages case.
Post by: Brietta on February 01, 2017, 10:11:01 AM
It will be interesting to see what happens I don't think the McCanns have a lot of money They may be able to declare bankruptcy and he won't get a penny off them
He won't get a penny anyway. They owe the money to the Portuguese Court for legal costs
Title: Re: Supreme Court rules against the McCanns in damages case.
Post by: carlymichelle on February 01, 2017, 10:16:35 AM
Exactly, no investigation with little prospect of one at the time, but a real danger that in the country where she went missing everyone would be brainwashed into believing Amaral's thesis was the truth and that Madeleine was dead and no longer findable. Were they wrong to stand up against him and his book in an effort to try and stop him from his campaign against them and their daughter? Let's not forget, doubter logic dictates if they don't sue, it must be true, so had they not fought him in the courts you would have seen this as further evidence of their guilt, would you not?
So they spent all the money that could have been used on private detectives, public awareness initiatives etc to fund a case on a spurious belief ( rejected by the courts) that a whole nation could be brainwashed by a book. Is that really what you're saying? Lest we forget at the time they filed the claim there was sighting coming in hand over fist.
Title: Re: Supreme Court rules against the McCanns in damages case.
Post by: Mr Gray on February 01, 2017, 10:44:44 AM
Not paying money owed to the judiciary might be a criminal charge. You know just how contrary Portuguese law can be
It's the same over here. The courts take a dim view of people taking he piss and have court officers and policeman knocking on their doors at silly oclock (cos that's when folks is in and at their doziest), demanding money
Title: Re: Supreme Court rules against the McCanns in damages case.
Post by: John on February 01, 2017, 10:59:27 AM
Moderators please note:
It is understandable that there will be some upset and anger among certain members in the light of yesterdays Supreme Court decision in Lisbon. Moderators should please ensure that this does not spill over onto the boards. Warnings should continue to be issued where they are deserved. TY
Title: Re: Supreme Court rules against the McCanns in damages case.
Post by: carlymichelle on February 01, 2017, 11:00:16 AM
It's the same over here. The courts take a dim view of people taking he piss and have court officers and policeman knocking on their doors at silly oclock (cos that's when folks is in and at their doziest), demanding money
@)(++(* if that happens here in australia police break down the door true story @)(++(*
Title: Re: Supreme Court rules against the McCanns in damages case.
Post by: Mr Gray on February 01, 2017, 11:00:35 AM
So they spent all the money that could have been used on private detectives, public awareness initiatives etc to fund a case on a spurious belief ( rejected by the courts) that a whole nation could be brainwashed by a book. Is that really what you're saying? Lest we forget at the time they filed the claim there was sighting coming in hand over fist.
If I recall correctly they spent an awful lot of money on private detectives, but yes they obviously firmly believed that Amaral and his book were damaging to the search for Madeleine and why shouldn't they have believed that? I'm sure if you had lost your child in a foreign country and the detective on the case wrote a bestselling book saying you'd hidden her body (the implication being don't bother looking for her, she's dead) you might feel the same way.
Title: Re: Supreme Court rules against the McCanns in damages case.
Post by: John on February 01, 2017, 11:04:16 AM
That is a ridiculous remark and it sounds quite vindictive.
If the money spent on chasing Amaral through the courts had been spent on searching for Madeleine, don't you agree that would have been the right thing to do ?
In the spirit of openness and transparency both sides should reveal how much this fiasco has cost so far.
Title: Re: Supreme Court rules against the McCanns in damages case.
Post by: Benice on February 01, 2017, 11:05:32 AM
A sad day for Madeleine and her family, but I'm not at all surprised at the result. It has been my contention all along that even if the book did damage the search for Madeleine then without asking everyone who read the book for their reaction to it - it was not possible to quantify the level of damage done. Obviously that was a non-starter and so without that proof the court were bound to find the claim to be Not Proven. imo.
Its difficult to understand the thinking behind a Judiciary which seemingly puts the right to Freedom of Expression way above above the right to be Presumed Innocent until Proved Guilty - especially as the former can be used and abused to make a complete mockery of the latter, IMO.
I remain as baffled as ever re PT's legal system.
Title: Re: Supreme Court rules against the McCanns in damages case.
Post by: John on February 01, 2017, 11:08:04 AM
A sad day for Madeleine and her family, but I'm not at all surprised at the result. It has been my contention all along that even if the book did damage the search for Madeleine then without asking everyone who read the book for their reaction to it - it was not possible to quantify the level of damage done. Obviously that was a non-starter and so without that proof the court were bound to find the claim to be Not Proven. imo.
Its difficult to understand the thinking behind a Judiciary which seemingly puts the right to Freedom of Expression way above above the right to be Presumed Innocent until Proved Guilty - especially as the former can be used and abused to make a complete mockery of the latter, IMO.
I remain as baffled as ever re PT's legal system.
To be serious for a moment, I think the problem is that they just don't know what happened to Madeleine. The courts have to be very careful not to render any judgement which could come back to bite them on the backside at a later date. It's the same with SY and the PJ. If they were to state that she was dead and she turned up alive and well, wouldn't they look a right bunch of Charlies. The reverse is also true.
Title: Re: Supreme Court rules against the McCanns in damages case.
Post by: Eleanor on February 01, 2017, 11:10:27 AM
I will be issuing Warnings to any further goading and sniping.
Title: Re: Supreme Court rules against the McCanns in damages case.
Post by: carlymichelle on February 01, 2017, 11:10:49 AM
To be serious for a moment, I think the problem is that they just don't know what happened to Madeleine. The courts have to be very careful not to render any judgement which could come back to bite them on the backside at a later date. It's the same with SY and the PJ. If they were to state that she was dead and she turned up alive and well, wouldn't they look a right bunch of Charlies.
exactly what if they accepted the abduction and maddies body turned up somewhere else besides portugal ? im not saying it will of course but you know what i mean thats why the police have to keepa open mind
Title: Re: Supreme Court rules against the McCanns in damages case.
Post by: Brietta on February 01, 2017, 11:14:41 AM
It is not the end of the road for the McCanns ... nor will it ever be until they find out what happened to Madeleine.
At the moment it matters not because the Policia Judiciaria and Scotland Yard are still looking for her and to find that out.
If they are unsuccessful and one sincerely hopes that won't be the case, Madeleine's parents will be without the financial resources to keep their own enquiries open or divert the money to others. Some will find contentment in that thought.
Title: Re: Supreme Court rules against the McCanns in damages case.
Post by: faithlilly on February 01, 2017, 11:17:57 AM
It is not the end of the road for the McCanns ... nor will it ever be until they find out what happened to Madeleine.
At the moment it matters not because the Policia Judiciaria and Scotland Yard are still looking for her and to find that out.
If they are unsuccessful and one sincerely hopes that won't be the case, Madeleine's parents will be without the financial resources to keep their own enquiries open or divert the money to others. Some will find contentment in that thought.
And some will think it was absolutely unnecessary.
Title: Re: Supreme Court rules against the McCanns in damages case.
Post by: carlymichelle on February 01, 2017, 11:19:07 AM
And some will think it was absolutely unnecessary.
exactly faithlily what did the mcanns get out of this after 8 years? they lost and they owe people lots of money i wouldnt think it was worth it would you??
Title: Re: Supreme Court rules against the McCanns in damages case.
Post by: faithlilly on February 01, 2017, 11:25:15 AM
exactly faithlily what did the mcanns get out of this after 8 years? they lost and they owe people lots of money i wouldnt think it was worth it would you??
Indeed.
Title: Re: Supreme Court rules against the McCanns in damages case.
Post by: Alfie on February 01, 2017, 11:32:19 AM
Because McCann doubters think the McCanns hid their child's body they don't have the imagination or the empathy (sorry to use that word, but it's the only one that will do) to put themselves in the place of innocent people who have lost their child and who believe she may still be alive, people who have a best-selling book written about them that baldly states she is dead and accuses them of hiding her body. They cannot understand why this would drive such people to seek legal redress. It's not about arrogance or greed, it's about fairness and putting right a wrong, and above all about not ensuring that their child is not written off as dead and gone. The doubters will NEVER accept or understand this because of their firm belief that Amaral's theory was broadly correct.
Title: Re: Supreme Court rules against the McCanns in damages case.
Post by: Mr Gray on February 01, 2017, 11:35:11 AM
Posters on here and elsewhere are still distressing the twins with their nasty posts directed at their parents Tho posters obviously don't care
Title: Re: Supreme Court rules against the McCanns in damages case.
Post by: faithlilly on February 01, 2017, 11:37:24 AM
Because McCann doubters think the McCanns hid their child's body they don't have the imagination or the empathy (sorry to use that word, but it's the only one that will do) to put themselves in the place of innocent people who have lost their child and who believe she may still be alive, people who have a best-selling book written about them that baldly states she is dead and accuses them of hiding her body. They cannot understand why this would drive such people to seek legal redress. It's not about arrogance or greed, it's about fairness and putting right a wrong, and above all about not ensuring that their child is not written off as dead and gone. The doubters will NEVER accept or understand this because of their firm belief that Amaral's theory was broadly correct.
Do you really think it was worth depleting the fund in such a way? Now if OG does draw to a close they will have no money to resurrect their private investigation. Was being seen a right really worth that ?
Title: Re: Supreme Court rules against the McCanns in damages case.
Post by: John on February 01, 2017, 11:41:40 AM
Because McCann doubters think the McCanns hid their child's body they don't have the imagination or the empathy (sorry to use that word, but it's the only one that will do) to put themselves in the place of innocent people who have lost their child and who believe she may still be alive, people who have a best-selling book written about them that baldly states she is dead and accuses them of hiding her body. They cannot understand why this would drive such people to seek legal redress. It's not about arrogance or greed, it's about fairness and putting right a wrong, and above all about not ensuring that their child is not written off as dead and gone. The doubters will NEVER accept or understand this because of their firm belief that Amaral's theory was broadly correct.
Do you ever wonder why as parents of a missing child they invoke such distrust?
Title: Re: Supreme Court rules against the McCanns in damages case.
Post by: John on February 01, 2017, 11:43:12 AM
Do you really think it was worth depleting the fund in such a way? Now if OG does draw to a close they will have no money to resurrect their private investigation. Was being seen a right really worth that ?
The McCann's obviously got some real bad legal advice and by all accounts paid handsomely for it.
Add that to the bad private detectives and you have one big sorry mess!
Title: Re: Supreme Court rules against the McCanns in damages case.
Post by: Alfie on February 01, 2017, 11:43:53 AM
to be honest jass the mcanns and GA are old enough to fight their own battles maddie wasnt though was she?? and thats what most people dont like about the mcanns they have made it all about themselves with a after thought about maddie
Title: Re: Supreme Court rules against the McCanns in damages case.
Post by: stephen25000 on February 01, 2017, 12:10:00 PM
It is not the end of the road for the McCanns ... nor will it ever be until they find out what happened to Madeleine.
At the moment it matters not because the Policia Judiciaria and Scotland Yard are still looking for her and to find that out.
If they are unsuccessful and one sincerely hopes that won't be the case, Madeleine's parents will be without the financial resources to keep their own enquiries open or divert the money to others. Some will find contentment in that thought.
Depends who you mean by one.
You don't. I don't. Countless others here don't.
But, you know ......
Title: Re: Supreme Court rules against the McCanns in damages case.
Post by: jassi on February 01, 2017, 12:20:29 PM
If SY, reputedly among the best, can't come up with the goods, what hope of success has a tuppenny halfpenny private investigation?
Title: Re: Supreme Court rules against the McCanns in damages case.
Post by: carlymichelle on February 01, 2017, 12:28:13 PM
to be honest jass the mcanns and GA are old enough to fight their own battles maddie wasnt though was she?? and thats what most people dont like about the mcanns they have made it all about themselves with a after thought about maddie
The whole point of her parents bringing the case was to fight for and protect Madeleine's RIGHT to be regarded as a missing child and not to be dismissed and forgotten as a dead one - which is what Amaral was claiming.
The fact that purely out of an intense dislike for the parents, there are those who actually want to take it out on a little girl by supporting the removal of Madeleine's right to be searched for - just for the pleasure of spiting her mum and dad - is both sad and disturbing IMO.
Title: Re: Supreme Court rules against the McCanns in damages case.
Post by: pathfinder73 on February 01, 2017, 12:51:56 PM
Go tell that to SY because I don't think they spent millions years later on searching wasteland and inside drains for a living child.
Title: Re: Supreme Court rules against the McCanns in damages case.
Post by: carlymichelle on February 01, 2017, 12:56:31 PM
exactly i think its time that some people accept it is over dont you??
this is about maddie and until we know what happened it wont be over
Title: Re: Supreme Court rules against the McCanns in damages case.
Post by: John on February 01, 2017, 01:41:59 PM
If the British public hadn't raised funds for Amaral he would have not been able to defend himself properly and may have lost the case. That must be a bitter pill in itself for the McCanns to digest.
Title: Re: Supreme Court rules against the McCanns in damages case.
Post by: carlymichelle on February 01, 2017, 01:43:21 PM
If the British public hadn't raised funds for Amaral he would have not been able to defend himself properly and may have lost the case. That must be a bitter pill in itself for the McCanns to digest.
8((()*/ 8((()*/ exactly the public helped GA win and looks like they didnt donate as much to the mcanns did they
Title: Re: Supreme Court rules against the McCanns in damages case.
Post by: Mr Gray on February 01, 2017, 01:46:06 PM
If the British public hadn't raised funds for Amaral he would have not been able to defend himself properly and may have lost the case. That must be a bitter pill in itself for the McCanns to digest.
I wasnt aware that the British public had supported his appeal...amaral does not have the support of the British Public....just a handful of poeple who have believe a lot of lies is how i would describe them....you could say he had little support in portugal.
Title: Re: Supreme Court rules against the McCanns in damages case.
Post by: jassi on February 01, 2017, 01:53:17 PM
I wasnt aware that the British public had supported his appeal...amaral does not have the support of the British Public....just a handful of poeple who have believe a lot of lies is how i would describe them....you could say he had little support in portugal.
You can say what you like - it may not be true.
Title: Re: Supreme Court rules against the McCanns in damages case.
Post by: pathfinder73 on February 01, 2017, 01:56:05 PM
I wasnt aware that the British public had supported his appeal...amaral does not have the support of the British Public....just a handful of poeple who have believe a lot of lies is how i would describe them....you could say he had little support in portugal.
(http://pbs.twimg.com/media/C28wB11WgAAW1hA.jpg)
Title: Re: Supreme Court rules against the McCanns in damages case.
Post by: Carana on February 01, 2017, 02:05:41 PM
If the British public hadn't raised funds for Amaral he would have not been able to defend himself properly and may have lost the case. That must be a bitter pill in itself for the McCanns to digest.
I thought he was a lawyer?
What was the proportion between what his PT-based compatriots and his UK fan club raised?
Title: Re: Supreme Court rules against the McCanns in damages case.
Post by: jassi on February 01, 2017, 02:08:01 PM
The whole point of her parents bringing the case was to fight for and protect Madeleine's RIGHT to be regarded as a missing child and not to be dismissed and forgotten as a dead one - which is what Amaral was claiming.
The fact that purely out of an intense dislike for the parents, there are those who actually want to take it out on a little girl by supporting the removal of Madeleine's right to be searched for - just for the pleasure of spiting her mum and dad - is both sad and disturbing IMO.
Yes, they said that after they won the first judgement;
“We want to emphasise that the action was never about money. It was entirely focused on the libels on our other children and the damage that was done in the search for Madeleine.” http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/world-news/madeleine-mccann-kate-gerry-urge-5599047
The strange thing about that statement is that all claims relating to the children failed, so why did they settle for the Eur 500.000 awarded to the two of them?
If the damage caused to their children was their entire focus, why didn't they appeal on their behalf?
Title: Re: Supreme Court rules against the McCanns in damages case.
Post by: Mr Gray on February 01, 2017, 03:01:52 PM
Yes, they said that after they won the first judgement;
“We want to emphasise that the action was never about money. It was entirely focused on the libels on our other children and the damage that was done in the search for Madeleine.” http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/world-news/madeleine-mccann-kate-gerry-urge-5599047
The strange thing about that statement is that all claims relating to the children failed, so why did they settle for the Eur 500.000 awarded to the two of them?
If the damage caused to their children was their entire focus, why didn't they appeal on their behalf?
The book was banned that was the important thing And surely they needed to hear the result of amarals appeal first
Title: Re: Supreme Court rules against the McCanns in damages case.
Post by: stephen25000 on February 01, 2017, 03:03:51 PM
The book was banned that was the important thing And surely they needed to hear the result of amarals appeal first
Here was no need to take Amaral to court.
Now, they literally will be paying the price.
Title: Re: Supreme Court rules against the McCanns in damages case.
Post by: Mr Gray on February 01, 2017, 03:10:23 PM
I wonder how much the fact that amaral had been a senior PJ officer affected the Supreme Court judgement To have ruled against one of their officers in the Supreme Court would have humiliated the whole PJ
Title: Re: Supreme Court rules against the McCanns in damages case.
Post by: stephen25000 on February 01, 2017, 03:22:22 PM
I wonder how much the fact that amaral had been a senior PJ officer affected the Supreme Court judgement To have ruled against one of their officers in the Supreme Court would have humiliated the whole PJ
Pointless speculation.
Title: Re: Supreme Court rules against the McCanns in damages case.
Post by: Mr Gray on February 01, 2017, 03:27:34 PM
I wonder how much the fact that amaral had been a senior PJ officer affected the Supreme Court judgement To have ruled against one of their officers in the Supreme Court would have humiliated the whole PJ
Hardly.
Amaral had already been removed from the investigation for not following best PJ practice.
Title: Re: Supreme Court rules against the McCanns in damages case.
Post by: Mr Gray on February 01, 2017, 03:43:18 PM
Amaral had already been removed from the investigation for not following best PJ practice.
I realise amaral had been removed but the establishment supports the establishment This is a bizarre and disgraceful judgement imo The book was not a thesis It was a judgement He found them guilty He had no right to
Title: Re: Supreme Court rules against the McCanns in damages case.
Post by: ShiningInLuz on February 01, 2017, 04:18:05 PM
I realise amaral had been removed but the establishment supports the establishment This is a bizarre and disgraceful judgement imo The book was not a thesis It was a judgement He found them guilty He had no right to
You are fully entitled to your opinion.
What counts is what the Portuguese legal system decided. And if this latest decision had gone in favour of the McCanns, so be it, that is also what would have counted.
I am awaiting the details of the Supreme Court ruling, the McCann response to this, an indication as to whether the McCanns can/will go to the ECHR, and what financial adjudication arises from the Supreme Court ruling.
At that point it should be possible to evaluate the impact on the Find Madeleine fund, which is the only part of this entire topic that is of interest to me.
Title: Re: Supreme Court rules against the McCanns in damages case.
Post by: Mr Gray on February 01, 2017, 04:27:28 PM
What counts is what the Portuguese legal system decided. And if this latest decision had gone in favour of the McCanns, so be it, that is also what would have counted.
I am awaiting the details of the Supreme Court ruling, the McCann response to this, an indication as to whether the McCanns can/will go to the ECHR, and what financial adjudication arises from the Supreme Court ruling.
At that point it should be possible to evaluate the impact on the Find Madeleine fund, which is the only part of this entire topic that is of interest to me.
Of course its the verdict that counts but as posters are commenting on it I thought i might give my opinion
I will also be very interested in what happens now.......I would think that the McCanns have a choice whether they involve the fund or not. It would depend on how much amaral wants and whether he has the option and/or intent to pursue them further...
It will annoy posters but I do have experience in this area....If the sum demanded is so great the Mccanns may have no option but to file for bankruptcy and if there is little equity in their house they would be allowed to keep it
Title: Re: Supreme Court rules against the McCanns in damages case.
Post by: Mr Gray on February 01, 2017, 04:34:56 PM
Does anyone know if it was the McCanns personally who issued the writ or was it the fund...which is limited company....on their behalf
Title: Re: Supreme Court rules against the McCanns in damages case.
Post by: jassi on February 01, 2017, 04:35:39 PM
Of course its the verdict that counts but as posters are commenting on it I thought i might give my opinion
I will also be very interested in what happens now.......I would think that the McCanns have a choice whether they involve the fund or not. It would depend on how much amaral wants and whether he has the option and/or intent to pursue them further...
It will annoy posters but I do have experience in this area....If the sum demanded is so great the Mccanns may have no option but to file for bankruptcy and if there is little equity in their house they would be allowed to keep it
As yet, Amaral hasn't indicated that he wants anything. All that currently is at issue is the payment of costs to the Portuguese Court
Title: Re: Supreme Court rules against the McCanns in damages case.
Post by: Mr Gray on February 01, 2017, 04:39:47 PM
As yet, Amaral hasn't indicated that he wants anything. All that currently is at issue is the payment of costs to the Portuguese Court
according to John and others he intends to sue for damages
Title: Re: Supreme Court rules against the McCanns in damages case.
Post by: jassi on February 01, 2017, 04:45:34 PM
At sometime in the future, maybe. He may want a holiday first and make sure he gets his costs paid.
There is then the issue of whether he had any chance of winning in a UK court. as no doubt any case in a Portuguese court would be ignored by the McCanns.
He might go after a few posters though who he thinks have libeled him 8(0(*
Title: Re: Supreme Court rules against the McCanns in damages case.
Post by: Alice Purjorick on February 01, 2017, 05:03:46 PM
At sometime in the future, maybe. He may want a holiday first and make sure he gets his costs paid.
There is then the issue of whether he had any chance of winning in a UK court. as no doubt any case in a Portuguese court would be ignored by the McCanns.
He might go after a few posters though who he thinks have libeled him 8(0(*
Were I him I would take the money and run and put it about I was considering action against certain posters no names and no pack drill just to give the libellers [they know who they are] a severe bout of ring twitter. Then casually drop out I had forgotten about it about two years down the track.
Title: Re: Supreme Court rules against the McCanns in damages case.
Post by: Alice Purjorick on February 01, 2017, 05:09:43 PM
I wonder how much the fact that amaral had been a senior PJ officer affected the Supreme Court judgement To have ruled against one of their officers in the Supreme Court would have humiliated the whole PJ
Another alternative fact? The Supreme Court were ruling on a matter of law.
Title: Re: Supreme Court rules against the McCanns in damages case.
Post by: Alice Purjorick on February 01, 2017, 05:12:01 PM
Of course its the verdict that counts but as posters are commenting on it I thought i might give my opinion
I will also be very interested in what happens now.......I would think that the McCanns have a choice whether they involve the fund or not. It would depend on how much amaral wants and whether he has the option and/or intent to pursue them further...
It will annoy posters but I do have experience in this area....If the sum demanded is so great the Mccanns may have no option but to file for bankruptcy and if there is little equity in their house they would be allowed to keep it
Most posters would be amazed if you did not have experience in that area.
Title: Re: Supreme Court rules against the McCanns in damages case.
Post by: Mr Gray on February 01, 2017, 05:17:41 PM
Err yes; that's what supreme courts do. Now expand that to fit in with your aassertion.
Title: Re: Supreme Court rules against the McCanns in damages case.
Post by: Robittybob1 on February 01, 2017, 07:11:27 PM
"Madeleine's parents could now lodge an appeal to the highest court in the land, the European Court of Human Rights.
But a source close to the exasperated couple said: "I think the fight is finally over. They want to concentrate on finding Madeleine and don't think they have the time or energy to lodge yet another appeal." http://www.nzherald.co.nz/world/news/article.cfm?c_id=2&objectid=11792543
Fight on!
Title: Re: Supreme Court rules against the McCanns in damages case.
Post by: jassi on February 01, 2017, 07:17:26 PM
"Madeleine's parents could now lodge an appeal to the highest court in the land, the European Court of Human Rights.
But a source close to the exasperated couple said: "I think the fight is finally over. They want to concentrate on finding Madeleine and don't think they have the time or energy to lodge yet another appeal." http://www.nzherald.co.nz/world/news/article.cfm?c_id=2&objectid=11792543
Fight on!
What for? Their somewhat dubious reputation? They would be taking on the State of Portugal, not Amaral.
Title: Re: Supreme Court rules against the McCanns in damages case.
Post by: Mr Gray on February 01, 2017, 07:26:40 PM
Does anyone know if it was the McCanns personally who issued the writ or was it the fund...which is limited company....on their behalf
I'm very surprised you don't know. It was the McCanns but the Fund paid. No doubt the directors will be able to justify spending loads of money on the McCann's failed litigation.
Title: Re: Supreme Court rules against the McCanns in damages case.
Post by: Mr Gray on February 01, 2017, 07:28:50 PM
I'm very surprised you don't know. It was the McCanns but the Fund paid. No doubt the directors will be able to justify spending loads of money on the McCann's failed litigation.
Are there now any directors other than McCanns.
Title: Re: Supreme Court rules against the McCanns in damages case.
Post by: Mr Gray on February 01, 2017, 07:32:08 PM
I'm very surprised you don't know. It was the McCanns but the Fund paid. No doubt the directors will be able to justify spending loads of money on the McCann's failed litigation.
Im just checking as thats what I thought the situation was.... under the loose terms the directors can justify paying for the litigation but they can then decide if they wish to pay all the legal costs....if they don't then we cannot be sure the McCanns have the funds to pay
I think there could be some imteresting times ahead
Title: Re: Supreme Court rules against the McCanns in damages case.
Post by: stephen25000 on February 01, 2017, 07:32:58 PM
If the Mccann's are stupid enough to do that, they deserve everything they will get.
Add to that , the atmosphere created by brexit.
NO CHANCE.
people do it and win
so you are saying that the ECHR could be influenced in their INTERPRETATION of the law due to the nationality of the plaintifs...if they could then the supreme court may well have been too....thank you for supporting my assertion
Title: Re: Supreme Court rules against the McCanns in damages case.
Post by: Alice Purjorick on February 01, 2017, 07:47:50 PM
the fact the supreme court interpreted the law means its open to interpretation.....
Of course it is in its widest sense but not by any authority that has the power to overrule the current decision. The ECJ only deals with European Union Law and the ECHR has no authority to overturn the Portuguese Court's decision.
So your interpretation is the appeal court f****ed it up but the Supreme Courts interpretation is they didn't f**k it up. Guess who has the most rings up their sleeve.
Title: Re: Supreme Court rules against the McCanns in damages case.
Post by: Mr Gray on February 01, 2017, 07:56:54 PM
Of course it is in its widest sense but not by any authority that has the power to overrule the current decision. The ECJ only deals with European Union Law and the ECHR has no authority to overturn the Portuguese Court's decision.
So your interpretation is the appeal court f****ed it up but the Supreme Courts interpretation is they didn't f**k it up. Guess who has the most rings up their sleeve.
you know...that I know all of that......no one messed anything up...each court simply gave their opinion and the one taht counts is the Supreme Court.....the verdict is absed on their interpretation of the law which may have been influenced by their opinion of the appellants
Title: Re: Supreme Court rules against the McCanns in damages case.
Post by: stephen25000 on February 01, 2017, 08:10:33 PM
so you are saying that the ECHR could be influenced in their INTERPRETATION of the law due to the nationality of the plaintifs...if they could then the supreme court may well have been too....thank you for supporting my assertion
The Portuguese Appeal Court and Supreme Court acted on Law, as you find out shortly.
Title: Re: Supreme Court rules against the McCanns in damages case.
Post by: G-Unit on February 01, 2017, 08:10:48 PM
the fact the supreme court interpreted the law means its open to interpretation.....
The Supreme Court said 'Negada a Revista', which means the application to appeal was either denied or rejected, I'm not sure which. That, to me, means the Supreme Court were satisfied with the interpretation of the Appeal Court judges.
Title: Re: Supreme Court rules against the McCanns in damages case.
Post by: Mr Gray on February 01, 2017, 08:16:31 PM
The Supreme Court said 'Negada a Revista', which means the application to appeal was either denied or rejected, I'm not sure which. That, to me, means the Supreme Court were satisfied with the interpretation of the Appeal Court judges.
Thats right.....stephen seems to think thers a book of rules ath covers every situation...of course there isnt....the law has to be intepreted
Title: Re: Supreme Court rules against the McCanns in damages case.
Post by: jassi on February 01, 2017, 08:22:35 PM
Once made, their decision cannot be reversed or set aside.
Title: Re: Supreme Court rules against the McCanns in damages case.
Post by: Mr Gray on February 01, 2017, 08:24:47 PM
Exactly. They decided against the McCanns. Accept.
Im aware that they decided against them but strangely I have a similar thoughts to sil....im interested in what comes next.....could be quite fascinating
but on the note of acceptance
The McCanns are innocent of any criminal involvement in maddies disappearance....accept
Title: Re: Supreme Court rules against the McCanns in damages case.
Post by: stephen25000 on February 01, 2017, 09:08:03 PM
Im aware that they decided against them but strangely I have a similar thoughts to sil....im interested in what comes next.....could be quite fascinating
but on the note of acceptance
The McCanns are innocent of any criminal involvement in maddies disappearance....accept
It isn't known what happened to her.
However, they do remain the last known people to see her alive.
FACT.
Title: Re: Supreme Court rules against the McCanns in damages case.
Post by: Robittybob1 on February 01, 2017, 11:07:17 PM
It is sorted. The judgement of the Portuguese Supreme Court cannot be overturned. The McCann's could apply to the ECHR to sue the Portuguese State for not upholding their human rights but whatever happens there ..... see second sentence above. Read about "The MacLibel Trial" to gain a better appreciation.
Title: Re: Supreme Court rules against the McCanns in damages case.
Post by: carlymichelle on February 01, 2017, 11:35:26 PM
It is sorted. The judgement of the Portuguese Supreme Court cannot be overturned. The McCann's could apply to the ECHR to sue the Portuguese State for not upholding their human rights but whatever happens there ..... see second sentence above. Read about "The MacLibel Trial" to gain a better appreciation.
davel needs to accept the mcanns have lost and GA has won doesnt he
Title: Re: Supreme Court rules against the McCanns in damages case.
Post by: Alice Purjorick on February 01, 2017, 11:36:26 PM
The Sun stuff does not seem to have gone to script.
"On the night she was taken police received two separate potential sightings from members of the public -- however one was fully ruled out as being a holidaymaker with his daughter". So what about the other one chief?
Title: Re: Supreme Court rules against the McCanns in damages case.
Post by: Alice Purjorick on February 01, 2017, 11:39:44 PM
davel needs to accept the mcanns have lost and GA has won doesnt he
All that is left is for the supporters to sling brick bats at the Portuguese legal system. Stuff their luck. "No one with any intelligence" will believe them; unquote 8(0(*
Title: Re: Supreme Court rules against the McCanns in damages case.
Post by: misty on February 02, 2017, 01:27:43 AM
It is sorted. The judgement of the Portuguese Supreme Court cannot be overturned. The McCann's could apply to the ECHR to sue the Portuguese State for not upholding their human rights but whatever happens there ..... see second sentence above. Read about "The MacLibel Trial" to gain a better appreciation.
Portugal will lose. Tourists will go elsewhere. They will lose in the court of public opinion.
Title: Re: Supreme Court rules against the McCanns in damages case.
Post by: G-Unit on February 02, 2017, 05:49:01 AM
I think not. It's a storm in a teacup to most people.
The McCann's could have silenced Amaral and had the book banned without the huge claim for damages. That claim revealed the true reason for the case imo.
Title: Re: Supreme Court rules against the McCanns in damages case.
Post by: Angelo222 on February 02, 2017, 07:02:06 AM
Don't be daft Robbie. Do you really think the great British public give a hoot about who lost or won a court case in Lisbon?
It has put me off going there. Too many strange decisions and behaviour of the police toward tourists.
http://www.theportugalnews.com/news/family-claim-australian-woman-murdered-at-algarve-home-police-say-suicide/4397 There was the case "Portuguese police have allegedly failed to uncover the murder of an Australian woman who was found dead at her Algarve home in 2008, declaring it was suicide. The news emerged this week that an independent autopsy in her homeland said she had been the victim of a murder."
How could that be suicide?
Title: Re: Supreme Court rules against the McCanns in damages case.
Post by: Angelo222 on February 02, 2017, 07:29:26 AM
It has put me off going there. Too many strange decisions and behaviour of the police toward tourists.
http://www.theportugalnews.com/news/family-claim-australian-woman-murdered-at-algarve-home-police-say-suicide/4397 There was the case "Portuguese police have allegedly failed to uncover the murder of an Australian woman who was found dead at her Algarve home in 2008, declaring it was suicide. The news emerged this week that an independent autopsy in her homeland said she had been the victim of a murder."
How could that be suicide?
Its the same everywhere, Portugal is no different.
Title: Re: Supreme Court rules against the McCanns in damages case.
Post by: Angelo222 on February 02, 2017, 07:30:48 AM
the ones that do are very emotionally involved with the mcanns imo
I'm not emotionally involved. Just seeking the solution, and Amaral seems to be out of bounds using the suspicion of the Portuguese investigation as a solution without the actual charge been proved against the McCanns and their friends.
Title: Re: Supreme Court rules against the McCanns in damages case.
Post by: Robittybob1 on February 02, 2017, 07:34:33 AM
The McCann's could have silenced Amaral and had the book banned without the huge claim for damages. That claim revealed the true reason for the case imo.
How?
Title: Re: Supreme Court rules against the McCanns in damages case.
Post by: Angelo222 on February 02, 2017, 07:35:29 AM
I'm not emotionally involved. Just seeking the solution, and Amaral seems to be out of bounds using the suspicion of the Portuguese investigation as a solution without the actual charge been proved against the McCanns and their friends.
So tell me Rob, what about their activities after the event. Do you agree that this should be investigated?
Title: Re: Supreme Court rules against the McCanns in damages case.
Post by: carlymichelle on February 02, 2017, 07:36:39 AM
didnt the hirecar have more miles/km then it should have??
As I said there could be a story to tell. It really amazed me that the hire car wasn't examined on the day that the villa was examined but they were allowed to do the trip to Huelva the next day and then the PJ say more mileage was clocked up on that trip. It doesn't seem to make sense to me.
Title: Re: Supreme Court rules against the McCanns in damages case.
Post by: Angelo222 on February 02, 2017, 07:45:52 AM
It's a rather stupid idea to suggest posters are emotionally involved and I'm surprised you are doing it Can't you understand it is a fascinating case The Portuguese have given their verdict and thats that It will be interesting to see what happens now
Title: Re: Supreme Court rules against the McCanns in damages case.
Post by: Angelo222 on February 02, 2017, 07:57:58 AM
It's a rather stupid idea to suggest posters are emotionally involved and I'm surprised you are doing it Can't you understand it is a fascinating case The Portuguese have given their verdict and thats that It will be interesting to see what happens now
Its Amaral's turn now to turn up the heat.
Title: Re: Supreme Court rules against the McCanns in damages case.
Post by: Mr Gray on February 02, 2017, 07:58:23 AM
Its the same everywhere, Portugal is no different.
Portugal is different The police have far too much power I have never seen someone looking like cipriano appear in court on the UK The PJ knew they could get away with it and they did
Title: Re: Supreme Court rules against the McCanns in damages case.
Post by: Mr Gray on February 02, 2017, 07:59:18 AM
So tell me Rob, what about their activities after the event. Do you agree that this should be investigated?
Angelo, may I ask why you think the McCanns should be investigated when you appear to be convinced that Madeleine was abducted after she woke and wandered?
Title: Re: Supreme Court rules against the McCanns in damages case.
Post by: Alfie on February 02, 2017, 08:13:38 AM
Angelo, may I ask why you think the McCanns should be investigated when you appear to be convinced that Madeleine was abducted after she woke and wandered?
The McCanns have been investigated It's time for their critics to move on 10 years almost and they are still posting the same rubbish
Title: Re: Supreme Court rules against the McCanns in damages case.
Post by: Mr Gray on February 02, 2017, 08:24:21 AM
Strange not a word from amaral
Title: Re: Supreme Court rules against the McCanns in damages case.
Post by: faithlilly on February 02, 2017, 08:25:28 AM
rather you hope he is wrong?? GA could sue you and any other mcann supoorters if he wanted too nothing is stopping him
So what in your opinion can he sue McCann supporters for?
He has been 'accused' of:-
1. Having a criminal conviction. 2. Being an adulterer. 3. Defrauding his own brother 4. Making untrue statements in his book and telling lies in interviews. 5. Breaking his own country's secrecy laws by covertly talking to the press.
As all of the above is on record as being the case - what are the grounds on which you are so sure he can sue McCann supporters?
IMO the only people he can possibly sue are his own supporters who made his book available for free worldwide on the internet without his permission, thus depriving him of profit.
Title: Re: Supreme Court rules against the McCanns in damages case.
Post by: stephen25000 on February 02, 2017, 09:07:36 AM
So what in your opinion can he sue McCann supporters for?
He has been 'accused' of:-
1. Having a criminal conviction. 2. Being an adulterer. 3. Defrauding his own brother 4. Making untrue statements in his book and telling lies in interviews. 5. Breaking his own country's secrecy laws by covertly talking to the press.
As all of the above is on record as being the case - what are the grounds on which you are so sure he can sue McCann supporters?
IMO the only people he can possibly sue are his own supporters who made his book available for free worldwide on the internet without his permission, thus depriving him of profit.
Well I've seen some desperate attempts in my time to divert attention, but what do any of these have to do with this case ?
By the way, do you seriously believe that only one person might have broken Portugal's secrecy laws.
What about the sources close to the Mccann's ? &%+((£
Title: Re: Supreme Court rules against the McCanns in damages case.
Post by: carlymichelle on February 02, 2017, 09:08:56 AM
The defamation and libel from some McCann supporters directed towards Amaral have been documented.
As to what he and his lawyers do with it, we will have to wait to see.
stuff like he drove around portugal with his little girl drunk etc which is hersay claims that he killed his own dog etc calling him names like A M O R A L etc claming he was a bungling cop etc loads of other stuff defaming him with stuff like he was a fat cop who dared to have dinner the night maddie vanished etc petty stufff imo
Title: Re: Supreme Court rules against the McCanns in damages case.
Post by: Benice on February 02, 2017, 09:24:21 AM
The defamation and libel from some McCann supporters directed towards Amaral have been documented.
As to what he and his lawyers do with it, we will have to wait to see.
What has any of that got to do with Carly's claim that there is nothing to stop Amaral suing McCann supporters -and my request for substantiation of that serious claim?
Title: Re: Supreme Court rules against the McCanns in damages case.
Post by: Angelo222 on February 02, 2017, 09:25:56 AM
Portugal is different The police have far too much power I have never seen someone looking like cipriano appear in court on the UK The PJ knew they could get away with it and they did
You think British coppers are perfect little angels then?
Title: Re: Supreme Court rules against the McCanns in damages case.
Post by: carlymichelle on February 02, 2017, 09:28:22 AM
The defamation and libel from some McCann supporters directed towards Amaral have been documented.
As to what he and his lawyers do with it, we will have to wait to see.
if he choses to act it is his choice isnt it he has also been accused by mcann supporters elsewhere of being involved in maddies vanishing i saw it with my own eyes
Title: Re: Supreme Court rules against the McCanns in damages case.
Post by: slartibartfast on February 02, 2017, 09:29:31 AM
The McCanns have been investigated It's time for their critics to move on 10 years almost and they are still posting the same rubbish
Not so old bean. The conspiracy to oust Amaral involving an unsavoury bunch of idiots from Barcelona and one stargazing nutter from Madeira will be the greatest can of worms ever opened in this fiasco.
Title: Re: Supreme Court rules against the McCanns in damages case.
Post by: carlymichelle on February 02, 2017, 09:32:34 AM
Not so old bean. The conspiracy to oust Amaral involving an unsavoury bunch of idiots from Barcelona and one stargazing nutter from Madeira will be the greatest can of worms ever opened in this fiasco.
over the years i have read mcann supporters online accusing amaral of being involved in what ever made maddie vanish seriously
Title: Re: Supreme Court rules against the McCanns in damages case.
Post by: stephen25000 on February 02, 2017, 09:32:57 AM
if he choses to act it is his choice isnt it he has also been accused by mcann supporters elsewhere of being involved in maddies vanishing i saw it with my own eyes
As have I Carly, and far worse.
As I said , it is a matter of record.
Title: Re: Supreme Court rules against the McCanns in damages case.
Post by: carlymichelle on February 02, 2017, 09:38:20 AM
stuff like he drove around portugal with his little girl drunk etc which is hersay claims that he killed his own dog etc calling him names like A M O R A L etc claming he was a bungling cop etc loads of other stuff defaming him with stuff like he was a fat cop who dared to have dinner the night maddie vanished etc petty stufff imo
Is that it?
If you think those are grounds for Amaral to sue McCan supporters, then prepare to be deeply disappointed.
Carry on with the wishful thinking Carly - but that is all it is.
IMO
Title: Re: Supreme Court rules against the McCanns in damages case.
Post by: carlymichelle on February 02, 2017, 09:49:20 AM
amaral has everyright to sue people who have tarnished his name including the mcanns which he going to from what i have read
Title: Re: Supreme Court rules against the McCanns in damages case.
Post by: Robittybob1 on February 02, 2017, 09:56:11 AM
stuff like he drove around portugal with his little girl drunk etc which is hersay claims that he killed his own dog etc calling him names like A M O R A L etc claming he was a bungling cop etc loads of other stuff defaming him with stuff like he was a fat cop who dared to have dinner the night maddie vanished etc petty stufff imo
They all sound like opinions to me.
Title: Re: Supreme Court rules against the McCanns in damages case.
Post by: Benice on February 02, 2017, 10:20:37 AM
amaral has everyright to sue people who have tarnished his name including the mcanns which he going to from what i have read
So you don't think that acquiring a criminal conviction, committing adultery, swindling his own brother, abusing his power whilst a policemen by breaking the law himself and having his name mentioned by Amnesty International under the Torture section - has tarnished his name in any way whatsoever? Not even a tad?
There's no answer to that.
Title: Re: Supreme Court rules against the McCanns in damages case.
Post by: stephen25000 on February 02, 2017, 10:28:41 AM
So you don't think that acquiring a criminal conviction, committing adultery, swindling his own brother, abusing his power whilst a policemen by breaking the law himself and having his name mentioned by Amnesty International under the Torture section - has tarnished his name in any way whatsoever? Not even a tad?
There's no answer to that.
Amaral tortured no one.
Committing adultery, are you kidding ..........................
Swindling his own brother. Has that been to court ?
Title: Re: Supreme Court rules against the McCanns in damages case.
Post by: carlymichelle on February 02, 2017, 10:33:47 AM
and amarals private life has nothing to do with the mcanns or supporters
it has to do with his reputation
Title: Re: Supreme Court rules against the McCanns in damages case.
Post by: G-Unit on February 02, 2017, 11:29:04 AM
For those who are interested the winner of a civil action in Portugal can claim from the losing party;
a) the justice tax paid by the winning party b) the process charges paid by the winning party c) 50% of the amount paid by the losing party for the justice tax for compensation towards legal services of the winning party
The amounts of the fees are calculated in relation to the value of the initial claim.
Each additional hearing or appeal adds further costs.
Title: Re: Supreme Court rules against the McCanns in damages case.
Post by: Alfie on February 02, 2017, 11:30:32 AM
If you think those are grounds for Amaral to sue McCan supporters, then prepare to be deeply disappointed.
Carry on with the wishful thinking Carly - but that is all it is.
IMO
LOL. As no one is allowed to libel anyone on this forum, and all libel is quickly removed no one here has any reason to fear a libel action from anyone least of all unvengeful, un-greedy, non- arrogant, non-foolhardy jolly decent chaps like Amaral.
Title: Re: Supreme Court rules against the McCanns in damages case.
Post by: carlymichelle on February 02, 2017, 11:30:46 AM
Committing adultery, are you kidding ..........................
Swindling his own brother. Has that been to court ?
Yes ... it has indeed been to court and is a matter of record. It proved a horrendously expensive exercise for him as well as illustrating that his financial difficulties do not stem from Madeleine's case.
Yes ... it has indeed been to court and is a matter of record. It proved a horrendously expensive exercise for him as well as illustrating that his financial difficulties do not stem from Madeleine's case.
...and this thing with his brother, what does it have to do with this case and Tuesdays decision ?
I don't know exactly what he was doing while present and nominally in charge in the police station at the time a prisoner was the object of vicious torture being inflicted on her by police officers. Neither does she ... because they had put a bag over her head. What I do know is that he perjured himself regarding the incident.
Therefore to answer your question ... no ... I do not agree with your assertion, for the simple reason, I do not know.
Wonder why it is you are in denial about a criminal conviction for dishonesty ... but craic on interminably about Kate McCann.
Re defrauding his brother ... you asked the question ... I answered you.
Title: Re: Supreme Court rules against the McCanns in damages case.
Post by: stephen25000 on February 02, 2017, 02:21:58 PM
I don't know exactly what he was doing while present and nominally in charge in the police station at the time a prisoner was the object of vicious torture being inflicted on her by police officers. Neither does she ... because they had put a bag over her head. What I do know is that he perjured himself regarding the incident.
Therefore to answer your question ... no ... I do not agree with your assertion, for the simple reason, I do not know.
Wonder why it is you are in denial about a criminal conviction for dishonesty ... but craic on interminably about Kate McCann.
Re defrauding his brother ... you asked the question ... I answered you.
I know what the conviction was for.
Meanwhile it doesn't change the McCann's situation one iota.
I can't understand, why some people devoutly support the McCann's.
Title: Re: Supreme Court rules against the McCanns in damages case.
Post by: Mr Gray on February 02, 2017, 02:49:38 PM
For those who are interested the winner of a civil action in Portugal can claim from the losing party;
a) the justice tax paid by the winning party b) the process charges paid by the winning party c) 50% of the amount paid by the losing party for the justice tax for compensation towards legal services of the winning party
The amounts of the fees are calculated in relation to the value of the initial claim.
Each additional hearing or appeal adds further costs.
Oh dear! so a percentage of what they asked fornot waht the Court of First Instance awarded. That's a big number, 1.2MM (pdst stg or Euros?) either way still alot.
Title: Re: Supreme Court rules against the McCanns in damages case.
Post by: Alice Purjorick on February 02, 2017, 03:07:54 PM
Amaral's book is littered with examples, either of lies, or of careless references grossly at variance with the truth.
That particular horse if it ever existed has long since bolted. The Court has ruled and it cannot be overturned. I am sure the entire Portuguese nation is devastated at the fact you think they are whatever it is you think they are. Watch out the Moorish part don't put out a fatwa on you .... @)(++(*
Title: Re: Supreme Court rules against the McCanns in damages case.
Post by: Alice Purjorick on February 02, 2017, 03:11:07 PM
Yes ... it has indeed been to court and is a matter of record. It proved a horrendously expensive exercise for him as well as illustrating that his financial difficulties do not stem from Madeleine's case.
What you and others have to come to terms with is the enormity of the McCann's defeat, which I and others predicted.
To be honest I havent come to terms with the mccanns defeat but Im not too worried as it wont affect me in the slightest. Im off on holiday tuesday and will have a great time
Title: Re: Supreme Court rules against the McCanns in damages case.
Post by: Alice Purjorick on February 02, 2017, 03:24:59 PM
Portugal will lose. Tourists will go elsewhere. They will lose in the court of public opinion.
Do you mean like the amount of tourism the UK lost when the ECHR ordered UK to pay Steel and Morris 57 grand for allowing Steel's and Morris's human rights to be infringed ? I don't notice them staying away in droves as one might say. I doubt many knew or cared. The McCann case hasn't stopped me or many others from going to Portugal. The court of public opinion don't exist. This very forum is testament to that.
Title: Re: Supreme Court rules against the McCanns in damages case.
Post by: G-Unit on February 02, 2017, 03:33:45 PM
Oh dear! so a percentage of what they asked fornot waht the Court of First Instance awarded. That's a big number, 1.2MM (pdst stg or Euros?) either way still alot.
A case of be careful what you ask for, perhaps. There will undoubtedly be interest to pay on Amaral's frozen assets too. The other defendants will have to be paid also, I would think, unless they settled with them after the first judgement.
Title: Re: Supreme Court rules against the McCanns in damages case.
Post by: Brietta on February 02, 2017, 03:42:21 PM
A case of be careful what you ask for, perhaps. There will undoubtedly be interest to pay on Amaral's frozen assets too. The other defendants will have to be paid also, I would think, unless they settled with them after the first judgement.
I would have assumed that the interest on the money that Amaral accrued from the lucrative vehicle of Madeleine McCann's case both as an author and pundit, will be sitting safely in the bank alongside the capital and therefore will not feature.
Title: Re: Supreme Court rules against the McCanns in damages case.
Post by: G-Unit on February 02, 2017, 03:46:00 PM
To be honest I havent come to terms with the mccanns defeat but Im not too worried as it wont affect me in the slightest. Im off on holiday tuesday and will have a great time
They were defeated over six months ago. The Supreme Court was a long shot because it had already rejected an Appeal by them previously.
Title: Re: Supreme Court rules against the McCanns in damages case.
Post by: stephen25000 on February 02, 2017, 03:48:25 PM
I would have assumed that the interest on the money that Amaral accrued from the lucrative vehicle of Madeleine McCann's case both as an author and pundit, will be sitting safely in the bank alongside the capital and therefore will not feature.
Following the first judgement the McCanns were awarded Euro 500k plus Euro 106k interest, both due from Amaral, according to the UK press. Why would it not work the other way?
Title: Re: Supreme Court rules against the McCanns in damages case.
Post by: G-Unit on February 02, 2017, 03:59:18 PM
No doubt we will know more when the entire judgement is published along with who pays what.
Likewise, what happens if they are not entitled to use the fund ?
Will there be a judgement if it was thrown out? The Appeal Court judgement will become the final one then, won't it? That's what happened when the Supreme Court threw their last appeal out.
Title: Re: Supreme Court rules against the McCanns in damages case.
Post by: stephen25000 on February 02, 2017, 04:05:52 PM
Will there be a judgement if it was thrown out? The Appeal Court judgement will become the final one then, won't it? That's what happened when the Supreme Court threw their last appeal out.
I should have said what was decided in the Appeal Court.
Title: Re: Supreme Court rules against the McCanns in damages case.
Post by: Mr Gray on February 02, 2017, 04:11:03 PM
No doubt we will know more when the entire judgement is published along with who pays what.
Likewise, what happens if they are not entitled to use the fund ?
Depends on the costs involved May choose not to use the fund Depends how much they have May declare bankruptcy Wait one year then write million pound book As I said it will be interesting what happens next
Title: Re: Supreme Court rules against the McCanns in damages case.
Post by: Brietta on February 02, 2017, 04:25:30 PM
No doubt we will know more when the entire judgement is published along with who pays what.
Likewise, what happens if they are not entitled to use the fund ?
Don't know if it will be any clearer when the judgement is published, I'm guessing the mechanics of that will be worked out elsewhere over a period. Also, I'm none too sure exactly what will be laid out in the judgement despite leaks. Just need to be patient and wait till later today? or tomorrow.
If Madeleine's fund is not available to help them out no doubt, being intelligent people, they will have had a contingency plan in place for some time.
Title: Re: Supreme Court rules against the McCanns in damages case.
Post by: misty on February 02, 2017, 04:45:46 PM
BBC Series 3 of "The Missing" would be a Blockbuster based on Madeleine's story, or a movie.
Title: Re: Supreme Court rules against the McCanns in damages case.
Post by: jassi on February 02, 2017, 04:46:35 PM
Depends on the costs involved May choose not to use the fund Depends how much they have May declare bankruptcy Wait one year then write million pound book As I said it will be interesting what happens next
As it will be the State of Portugal that the money would be owed to, do you think that an option they would wish to make? Could non-payment lead to them being refused entry to the country?
Title: Re: Supreme Court rules against the McCanns in damages case.
Post by: Mr Gray on February 02, 2017, 04:49:09 PM
As it will be the State of Portugal that the money would be owed to, do you think that an option they would wish to make? Could non-payment lead to them being refused entry to the country?
Still a civil debt Thousands go bankrupt owing the state tax Still just speculation If it's reasonable and they can pay it they will
Title: Re: Supreme Court rules against the McCanns in damages case.
Post by: stephen25000 on February 02, 2017, 04:52:40 PM
Depends on the costs involved May choose not to use the fund Depends how much they have May declare bankruptcy Wait one year then write million pound book As I said it will be interesting what happens next
Million Pound book ?
IMHO.
No chance at all.
Title: Re: Supreme Court rules against the McCanns in damages case.
Post by: Alice Purjorick on February 02, 2017, 04:55:13 PM
No doubt we will know more when the entire judgement is published along with who pays what.
Likewise, what happens if they are not entitled to use the fund ?
If "The Fund" issued the writ,i.e it's name is on the writ not if it typed it up put it in an envelope and stuck it in a pillar box, then "The Fund" pays. Otherwise as directors the McCanns acn take the money out of the fund and use it either as a directors loan which has to be paid back or as income which then attracts the attention of The Revenuers. The copy of the relevant bits of the writ from The Sun and bandied about on here showed the McCanns names.
Title: Re: Supreme Court rules against the McCanns in damages case.
Post by: Brietta on February 02, 2017, 04:56:04 PM
BBC Series 3 of "The Missing" would be a Blockbuster based on Madeleine's story, or a movie.
Agreed ... although bearing in mind that Kate is a best selling author who possibly keeps a journal ... I was thinking more along the lines of a book aimed at the Portuguese market ... along the lines of utilising the device of 'fictional detectives'.
Title: Re: Supreme Court rules against the McCanns in damages case.
Post by: stephen25000 on February 02, 2017, 04:57:04 PM
If "The Fund" issued the writ,i.e it's name is on the writ not if it typed it up put it in an envelope and stuck it in a pillar box, then "The Fund" pays. Otherwise as directors the McCanns acn take the money out of the fund and use it either as a directors loan which has to be paid back or as income which then attracts the attention of The Revenuers. The copy of the relevant bits of the writ from The Sun and bandied about on here showed the McCanns names.
Thanks for that.
Title: Re: Supreme Court rules against the McCanns in damages case.
Post by: Mr Gray on February 02, 2017, 05:04:10 PM
If "The Fund" issued the writ,i.e it's name is on the writ not if it typed it up put it in an envelope and stuck it in a pillar box, then "The Fund" pays. Otherwise as directors the McCanns acn take the money out of the fund and use it either as a directors loan which has to be paid back or as income which then attracts the attention of The Revenuers. The copy of the relevant bits of the writ from The Sun and bandied about on here showed the McCanns names.
I asked this question yesterday Gunit said it was the McCanns personally
Title: Re: Supreme Court rules against the McCanns in damages case.
Post by: Alice Purjorick on February 02, 2017, 05:09:38 PM
I asked this question yesterday Gunit said it was the McCanns personally
That's what I said if you read it properly. I also posted on the topic at least twice previously since the Appeal Court Ruling drawing attention to the tax liablity.
Title: Re: Supreme Court rules against the McCanns in damages case.
Post by: jassi on February 02, 2017, 05:12:50 PM
No doubt they will need to be consulting with more than just their lawyers.
Title: Re: Supreme Court rules against the McCanns in damages case.
Post by: misty on February 02, 2017, 05:15:51 PM
That's what I said if you read it properly. I also posted on the topic at least twice previously since the Appeal Court Ruling drawing attention to the tax liablity.
What happens if the money was previously paid into the Fund by the McCanns (the book royalties) and kept as restricted funds?
Title: Re: Supreme Court rules against the McCanns in damages case.
Post by: Alice Purjorick on February 02, 2017, 05:16:45 PM
As it will be the State of Portugal that the money would be owed to, do you think that an option they would wish to make? Could non-payment lead to them being refused entry to the country?
It would entail more than that.
Title: Re: Supreme Court rules against the McCanns in damages case.
Post by: Alice Purjorick on February 02, 2017, 05:31:26 PM
What happens if the money was previously paid into the Fund by the McCanns (the book royalties) and kept as restricted funds?
It then has to show up as a loan to the company. It does not appear to on the balance sheets nor is it mentioned in the directors annual reports as far as I can see. If it does the lender can call in the loan when the terms of the loan allow. Once in the company's bank account it belongs to the company which as you know is a completely separate legal person from the McCanns. The bottom line is whoever's names are on the writ as the plaintiffs now have to cough up. Where the money actually comes from is immaterial. I was only pointing out what can happen. As the accounts are heralded by some as being so tranparent it should be easy to work out if one is really interested.... 8(0(*
Title: Re: Supreme Court rules against the McCanns in damages case.
Post by: Eleanor on February 02, 2017, 05:46:04 PM
Dead easy. Make a film. Now is the time. Don't even begin to imagine that the McCanns are done with the fate of their daughter.
Title: Re: Supreme Court rules against the McCanns in damages case.
Post by: Mr Gray on February 02, 2017, 05:47:19 PM
What happens if the money was previously paid into the Fund by the McCanns (the book royalties) and kept as restricted funds?
Interesting. There were restricted funds 'for the direct costs of the search for and the investigation into the disappearance of Madeleine', but there is now a £480k sum under 'investments' and no restricted funds mentioned. It doesn't say if those funds are also restricted.
If restricted funds are used by a company for a purpose other than the specified one the person who donated them can ask for them to be repaid.
Of course the fund has previously paid legal and witness costs for this case because Amaral's book 'harmed the search'.
Title: Re: Supreme Court rules against the McCanns in damages case.
Post by: Mr Gray on February 02, 2017, 05:50:12 PM
It then has to show up as a loan to the company. It does not appear to on the balance sheets nor is it mentioned in the directors annual reports as far as I can see. If it does the lender can call in the loan when the terms of the loan allow. Once in the company's bank account it belongs to the company which as you know is a completely separate legal person from the McCanns. The bottom line is whoever's names are on the writ as the plaintiffs now have to cough up. Where the money actually comes from is immaterial. I was only pointing out what can happen. As the accounts are heralded by some as being so tranparent it should be easy to work out if one is really interested.... 8(0(*
So just to clarify the fund is not liable for any costs but under the terms could pay the costs if the directors chooses
Title: Re: Supreme Court rules against the McCanns in damages case.
Post by: Mr Gray on February 02, 2017, 05:58:08 PM
a film yes....that would be worth several million and they could answer a lot of questions
There is always a way to do what one would most unashamedly wish for. The McCanns do have several options. They are far from done. This is not over for Madeleine.
Title: Re: Supreme Court rules against the McCanns in damages case.
Post by: jassi on February 02, 2017, 06:19:02 PM
There is always a way to do what one would most unashamedly wish for. The McCanns do have several options. They are far from done. This is not over for Madeleine.
Whatever helps you get through the day.
Title: Re: Supreme Court rules against the McCanns in damages case.
Post by: Mr Gray on February 02, 2017, 06:26:57 PM
I hear they would take legal action if Amaral's book was published in the UK.
Trouble is, it's already easily accessed and more people are doing so.
A film would make several million for the...amaral cant publish his book in the uk you have no evidence....as usual....that more poeple are accessing his book online
Title: Re: Supreme Court rules against the McCanns in damages case.
Post by: Mr Gray on February 02, 2017, 06:27:56 PM
same the mcanns problems dont affect me in the slightest they brought them on themselves
Title: Re: Supreme Court rules against the McCanns in damages case.
Post by: Mr Gray on February 02, 2017, 06:47:37 PM
out of adversity......I think the mccanns will come back stronger...sometimes it takes a kick in the teeth to give you the energy and desire to carry on...anyone who writes off the mcCanns is a fool imo...they will continue the search for their daughter and I wish them the best of luck
Title: Re: Supreme Court rules against the McCanns in damages case.
Post by: G-Unit on February 02, 2017, 06:50:24 PM
So just to clarify the fund is not liable for any costs but under the terms could pay the costs if the directors chooses
The question then arising is if the directors are acting in the company's best interest financially, which is one of their duties. If paying the costs of two of the director's litigation bankrupts the company that is not in the company's best interest, is it?
Title: Re: Supreme Court rules against the McCanns in damages case.
Post by: jassi on February 02, 2017, 06:52:12 PM
The question then arising is if the directors are acting in the company's best interest financially, which is one of their duties. If paying the costs of two of the director's litigation bankrupts the company that is not in the company's best interest, is it?
Can a bankrupt be a company director?
Title: Re: Supreme Court rules against the McCanns in damages case.
Post by: stephen25000 on February 02, 2017, 06:53:56 PM
out of adversity......I think the mccanns will come back stronger...sometimes it takes a kick in the teeth to give you the energy and desire to carry on...anyone who writes off the mcCanns is a fool imo...they will continue the search for their daughter and I wish them the best of luck
Well said Davel, I too wish them the best of luck. I'm sure once they have recovered from this unjust decision they will continue with the search for their much loved daughter. I wish them good health, strength and much support from their friends and family.
Title: Re: Supreme Court rules against the McCanns in damages case.
Post by: Eleanor on February 02, 2017, 06:56:33 PM
No, I don't think it will A lot of tiny tears to be shed before this is finally put to bed.
I do actually understand this particulier facet of Portuguese Law, although not with any certainty, probably because it is only an interpretation. But at least I can see how it came about.
I will remain entirely on the side of The McCanns, and continue to hope that Madeleine will be found alive and unharmed, within the bounds of what is possible.
There is nothing that nasty people can say to me that will lead me to believe otherwise.
Title: Re: Supreme Court rules against the McCanns in damages case.
Post by: stephen25000 on February 02, 2017, 06:59:06 PM
Well said Davel, I too wish them the best of luck. I'm sure once they have recovered from this unjust decision they will continue with the search for their much loved daughter. I wish them good health, strength and much support from their friends and family.
When did they last search for Madeleine ?
Title: Re: Supreme Court rules against the McCanns in damages case.
Post by: stephen25000 on February 02, 2017, 07:00:49 PM
So just to clarify the fund is not liable for any costs but under the terms could pay the costs if the directors chooses
Yes. But see G-Unit's earlier post. As the Sun went off piste a bit yesterday I would have a bit of the six to fours on them snooping in that area to see if there is a good front pager for them to sell more copy. One way or another the McCann name still seems to sell copy.
Title: Re: Supreme Court rules against the McCanns in damages case.
Post by: Mr Gray on February 02, 2017, 07:07:07 PM
a discharged bankrupt can be a director...ask Simon Cowell
Title: Re: Supreme Court rules against the McCanns in damages case.
Post by: Robittybob1 on February 02, 2017, 07:07:34 PM
Yes. But see G-Unit's earlier post. As the Sun went off piste a bit yesterday I would have a bit of the six to fours on them snooping in that area to see if there is a good front pager for them to sell more copy. One way or another the McCann name still seems to sell copy.
Quote from the Sun: "What are the claims in Goncalo Amaral’s book?
In the book, it is claimed that Maddie had died in their holiday flat and her parents faked her abduction to cover up the tragedy.
The book was released just three days after Gerry and Kate were told their status as formal suspects had been lifted on July 21 2008.
Amaral is understood to have earned £344,000 from his book before it was banned and a subsequent TV documentary.
The McCanns told the Lisbon court staging the Amaral libel trial in the summer of 2014 they were left “devastated and crushed” by his allegations."
If Amaral claims this, "Maddie had died in their holiday flat and her parents faked her abduction to cover up the tragedy", it is no longer opinion. The Supreme Court is wrong!
Title: Re: Supreme Court rules against the McCanns in damages case.
Post by: stephen25000 on February 02, 2017, 07:08:15 PM
Quote from the Sun: "What are the claims in Goncalo Amaral’s book?
In the book, it is claimed that Maddie had died in their holiday flat and her parents faked her abduction to cover up the tragedy.
The book was released just three days after Gerry and Kate were told their status as formal suspects had been lifted on July 21 2008.
Amaral is understood to have earned £344,000 from his book before it was banned and a subsequent TV documentary.
The McCanns told the Lisbon court staging the Amaral libel trial in the summer of 2014 they were left “devastated and crushed” by his allegations."
If Amaral claims this, "Maddie had died in their holiday flat and her parents faked her abduction to cover up the tragedy", it is no longer opinion. The Supreme Court is wrong!
So you are an expert in Portuguese Law ?
Title: Re: Supreme Court rules against the McCanns in damages case.
Post by: jassi on February 02, 2017, 07:11:15 PM
Quote from the Sun: "What are the claims in Goncalo Amaral’s book?
In the book, it is claimed that Maddie had died in their holiday flat and her parents faked her abduction to cover up the tragedy.
The book was released just three days after Gerry and Kate were told their status as formal suspects had been lifted on July 21 2008.
Amaral is understood to have earned £344,000 from his book before it was banned and a subsequent TV documentary.
The McCanns told the Lisbon court staging the Amaral libel trial in the summer of 2014 they were left “devastated and crushed” by his allegations."
If Amaral claims this, "Maddie had died in their holiday flat and her parents faked her abduction to cover up the tragedy", it is no longer opinion. The Supreme Court is wrong!
You really need to write and tell them. They'll be so grateful and immediately amend their findings
Title: Re: Supreme Court rules against the McCanns in damages case.
Post by: Robittybob1 on February 02, 2017, 07:12:23 PM
You really need to write and tell them. They'll be so grateful and immediately amend their findings
What is their address?
Title: Re: Supreme Court rules against the McCanns in damages case.
Post by: Alfie on February 02, 2017, 07:13:16 PM
Bankrupt shmankrupt. My bro-in-law has been declared bankrupt. Lives in a big house and drives a big car which he exchanges for an upgrade every 18 months. Now owns a very successful £1m+ turnover business. It's certainly not the end of the world that's for sure.
Title: Re: Supreme Court rules against the McCanns in damages case.
Post by: jassi on February 02, 2017, 07:14:07 PM
LOL. I remember the good old days of goading the opposition on here. In those days I seem to remember getting a warning for it, but these days it seems goading is positively encouraged when it's McCann supporters you want to wind up, even the forum owner had a go.
Still, I'm pretty confident I haven't had my last goad on this forum, plenty of opportunity for more in the months and years to come I'm sure... 8(0(*
Oh God. Will it be that long? I am 78 years old now and not actually senile just yet. But I can feel it coming on occasionally. How ever, don't bank on me giving up.
Title: Re: Supreme Court rules against the McCanns in damages case.
Post by: Eleanor on February 02, 2017, 07:24:14 PM
Your posts on this thread speak for themselves. Of course you're reveling in the McCanns' current situation (as are all their detractors), only a fool could fail to see it and only a fool would try and deny it.
Some of us have some decorum old stick and are reveling in something quite different.................. 8(>((
Title: Re: Supreme Court rules against the McCanns in damages case.
Post by: misty on February 02, 2017, 07:51:17 PM
It then has to show up as a loan to the company. It does not appear to on the balance sheets nor is it mentioned in the directors annual reports as far as I can see. If it does the lender can call in the loan when the terms of the loan allow. Once in the company's bank account it belongs to the company which as you know is a completely separate legal person from the McCanns. The bottom line is whoever's names are on the writ as the plaintiffs now have to cough up. Where the money actually comes from is immaterial. I was only pointing out what can happen. As the accounts are heralded by some as being so tranparent it should be easy to work out if one is really interested.... 8(0(*
I'm interested in your opinion on this part of Director's loans:-
A director’s loan is when you (or other close family members) get money from your company that isn’t:
a salary, dividend or expense repayment money you’ve previously paid into or loaned the company
Title: Re: Supreme Court rules against the McCanns in damages case.
Post by: Mr Gray on February 02, 2017, 07:58:28 PM
It will be in here somewhere: https://www.gov.uk/running-a-limited-company/taking-money-out-of-a-limited-company
That's where I got the quote from. You're not allowed to take out more money than you've put in. So the McCanns could withdraw £Y as long as it's less than £Z they've put in without it becoming a Director's Loan - yes? There are no shareholders to consider.
Title: Re: Supreme Court rules against the McCanns in damages case.
Post by: Brietta on February 02, 2017, 09:54:41 PM
That's where I got the quote from. You're not allowed to take out more money than you've put in. So the McCanns could withdraw £Y as long as it's less than £Z they've put in without it becoming a Director's Loan - yes? There are no shareholders to consider.
They are allowed to withdraw without prejudice, what is in effect their own money? Is that correct?
Title: Re: Supreme Court rules against the McCanns in damages case.
Post by: Alice Purjorick on February 02, 2017, 10:05:56 PM
That's where I got the quote from. You're not allowed to take out more money than you've put in. So the McCanns could withdraw £Y as long as it's less than £Z they've put in without it becoming a Director's Loan - yes? There are no shareholders to consider.
Try in here as well then: https://www.gov.uk/directors-loans/overview
It is really irrelevant though The McCanns names were on the writ as plaintiffs, the court ruled the plantiffs lost the case ergo they have to cough up what the court tells them to. Where the dosh actually comes from is largely irrelevant to the court.
As we don't know with any degree of certainty the details of any transactions within "The Company" we are guessing anyway. Powers 2C7 through 2C11 are interesting [refer Articles of Association].
Title: Re: Supreme Court rules against the McCanns in damages case.
Post by: Alice Purjorick on February 02, 2017, 10:11:51 PM
They are allowed to withdraw without prejudice, what is in effect their own money? Is that correct?
It is not correct carte blanche It may be under certain circumstances. Read all the Companies House stuff to get a proper picture a nd read what it says and not what you want it to say. If there are defitinitions read them first to understand what they mean.
Title: Re: Supreme Court rules against the McCanns in damages case.
Post by: slartibartfast on February 02, 2017, 10:45:42 PM
out of adversity......I think the mccanns will come back stronger...sometimes it takes a kick in the teeth to give you the energy and desire to carry on...anyone who writes off the mcCanns is a fool imo...they will continue the search for their daughter and I wish them the best of luck
Is that continue to search or start to search...
Title: Re: Supreme Court rules against the McCanns in damages case.
Post by: Brietta on February 02, 2017, 10:53:31 PM
It is not correct carte blanche It may be under certain circumstances. Read all the Companies House stuff to get a proper picture a nd read what it says and not what you want it to say. If there are defitinitions read them first to understand what they mean.
In other words ... without enrolling for a degree in accountancy ... what is put in by an authorised person can be taken out without let or hindrance by that authorised person.
Title: Re: Supreme Court rules against the McCanns in damages case.
Post by: slartibartfast on February 02, 2017, 10:57:29 PM
There's an old saying, "when you are in a hole stop digging". The McCanns have failed in their actions against Amaral. If they continue to fight this battle they will just get into deeper problems. As I have said before, if they had ignore it to start with, no one in the U.K. Would have heard of it.
Title: Re: Supreme Court rules against the McCanns in damages case.
Post by: Eleanor on February 02, 2017, 11:08:54 PM
There's an old saying, "when you are in a hole stop digging". The McCanns have failed in their actions against Amaral. If they continue to fight this battle they will just get into deeper problems. As I have said before, if they had ignore it to start with, no one in the U.K. Would have heard of it.
Not my point at all.
Title: Re: Supreme Court rules against the McCanns in damages case.
Post by: Brietta on February 02, 2017, 11:15:33 PM
There's an old saying, "when you are in a hole stop digging". The McCanns have failed in their actions against Amaral. If they continue to fight this battle they will just get into deeper problems. As I have said before, if they had ignore it to start with, no one in the U.K. Would have heard of it.
Can't you see that the McCanns have already won.
After a long haul their efforts ... and theirs alone ... have achieved the feat of getting the Policia Judicaria and the Met to investigate ~ reopen Madeleine's case ~ and conduct an intensive search for her.
The world has watched that happen and note has been taken of the implications of that.
I would imagine that the verdict of the supreme court might be puzzling to people who are living in the present and not in the past. My opinion of the Portuguese judgement couldn't be lower but that is of no import, the danger for Portugal may be that world opinion may also reflect that by what if nothing else is a monumental PR mess.
There is indeed much more than the money awarded to the defendant by the court to be considered here.
Title: Re: Supreme Court rules against the McCanns in damages case.
Post by: Alice Purjorick on February 02, 2017, 11:22:50 PM
In other words ... without enrolling for a degree in accountancy ... what is put in by an authorised person can be taken out without let or hindrance by that authorised person.
No! The Board of Directors run the company and are accountable at law for their actions. Repayment of a directors loan ahead of other creditors could under certain circumstances be see as preferential which is a nono and the whole board could find themselves in the mire. Read the documents and be better informed; or don't and believe what you want to believe as the case may be, it really is of no consequence to me. The issue is the McCanns lost the case and will have to pay whatever the court tells them to pay. It may bankrupt them and "The Fund" then on the other hand it may not, again it is of no consequence to me and never has been; I get perverse delight in watching people try to tell me that in the PdL Bubble up is down down is up and the sun rises in the west. "The Fund's" accounts are very transparent we are perpetually told so take a look in there and work it all out for yourself.
Title: Re: Supreme Court rules against the McCanns in damages case.
Post by: Alice Purjorick on February 02, 2017, 11:26:47 PM
After a long haul their efforts ... and theirs alone ... have achieved the feat of getting the Policia Judicaria and the Met to investigate ~ reopen Madeleine's case ~ and conduct an intensive search for her.
The world has watched that happen and note has been taken of the implications of that.
I would imagine that the verdict of the supreme court might be puzzling to people who are living in the present and not in the past. My opinion of the Portuguese judgement couldn't be lower but that is of no import, the danger for Portugal may be that world opinion may also reflect that by what if nothing else is a monumental PR mess.
There is indeed much more than the money awarded to the defendant by the court to be considered here.
Is this the latest from "The Brill Building" ?
Title: Re: Supreme Court rules against the McCanns in damages case.
Post by: Brietta on February 02, 2017, 11:59:25 PM
No! The Board of Directors run the company and are accountable at law for their actions. Repayment of a directors loan ahead of other creditors could under certain circumstances be see as preferential which is a nono and the whole board could find themselves in the mire. Read the documents and be better informed; or don't and believe what you want to believe as the case may be, it really is of no consequence to me. The issue is the McCanns lost the case and will have to pay whatever the court tells them to pay. It may bankrupt them and "The Fund" then on the other hand it may not, again it is of no consequence to me and never has been; I get perverse delight in watching people try to tell me that in the PdL Bubble up is down down is up and the sun rises in the west. "The Fund's" accounts are very transparent we are perpetually told so take a look in there and work it all out for yourself.
Hmmm ... it seems you know as much about it as I do.
One question you may actually be able to answer though ... what exactly is the "The Brill Building"?
Title: Re: Supreme Court rules against the McCanns in damages case.
Post by: misty on February 03, 2017, 12:30:08 AM
Hmmm ... it seems you know as much about it as I do.
One question you may actually be able to answer though ... what exactly is the "The Brill Building"?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brill_Building
I'm not quite sure what off-beat connection Alice was making with your post but I suspect he has shares in Google.
Title: Re: Supreme Court rules against the McCanns in damages case.
Post by: Brietta on February 03, 2017, 01:35:35 AM
It was decided in 2007 that the money donated by members of the public to Madeleine's fund would not be diverted to pay for legal expenses incurred ... for example, paying for independent DNA testing of the hire vehicle.
Which extraordinarily had been returned to their possession!
It is known that money had largely dried up making it was to write a book. The proceeds from the sale of which were placed directly into Madeleine's fund to join the money awarded from the press libels against the Tapas 7 and the McCanns. Fortunately the book was a best seller and raised enough to keep the fund afloat. Therefore there is no question of any money raised from public subscription being used to pay legal fees.
Quote They returned to their home in Rothley in Leicestershire at the weekend and are currently waiting for a judge to decide if they face charges.
It is understood the couple are planning their own forensic tests amid suspicion about claims made by detectives in interviews with Kate McCann.
The McCanns appointed lawyers in Portugal and Britain after being named as formal suspects - but they will not be paid out of money donated by well-wishers.
A statement made by Esther McVey from the board of Madeleine's Fund said payment of legal defence costs would be legally permissible so long as they were repaid in the event of a guilty conviction.
However, she said the fund's directors recognised the spirit in which the generous donations were given and decided not to pay for the McCanns' legal costs.
"We stress that Gerry and Kate have not asked for these costs to be paid," she said.
So far donations totalling £1,036,104.17 have been received for Madeleine's Fund: Leaving No Stone Unturned, according to the official campaign website. http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/6992372.stm
Title: Re: Supreme Court rules against the McCanns in damages case.
Post by: carlymichelle on February 03, 2017, 02:27:44 AM
It was decided in 2007 that the money donated by members of the public to Madeleine's fund would not be diverted to pay for legal expenses incurred ... for example, paying for independent DNA testing of the hire vehicle.
Which extraordinarily had been returned to their possession!
It is known that money had largely dried up making it was to write a book. The proceeds from the sale of which were placed directly into Madeleine's fund to join the money awarded from the press libels against the Tapas 7 and the McCanns. Fortunately the book was a best seller and raised enough to keep the fund afloat. Therefore there is no question of any money raised from public subscription being used to pay legal fees.
Quote They returned to their home in Rothley in Leicestershire at the weekend and are currently waiting for a judge to decide if they face charges.
It is understood the couple are planning their own forensic tests amid suspicion about claims made by detectives in interviews with Kate McCann.
The McCanns appointed lawyers in Portugal and Britain after being named as formal suspects - but they will not be paid out of money donated by well-wishers.
A statement made by Esther McVey from the board of Madeleine's Fund said payment of legal defence costs would be legally permissible so long as they were repaid in the event of a guilty conviction.
However, she said the fund's directors recognised the spirit in which the generous donations were given and decided not to pay for the McCanns' legal costs.
"We stress that Gerry and Kate have not asked for these costs to be paid," she said.
So far donations totalling £1,036,104.17 have been received for Madeleine's Fund: Leaving No Stone Unturned, according to the official campaign website. http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/6992372.stm
that was 10 years ago it has no meaning now
Title: Re: Supreme Court rules against the McCanns in damages case.
Post by: G-Unit on February 03, 2017, 06:57:02 AM
It was decided in 2007 that the money donated by members of the public to Madeleine's fund would not be diverted to pay for legal expenses incurred ... for example, paying for independent DNA testing of the hire vehicle.
Which extraordinarily had been returned to their possession!
It is known that money had largely dried up making it was to write a book. The proceeds from the sale of which were placed directly into Madeleine's fund to join the money awarded from the press libels against the Tapas 7 and the McCanns. Fortunately the book was a best seller and raised enough to keep the fund afloat. Therefore there is no question of any money raised from public subscription being used to pay legal fees.
Quote They returned to their home in Rothley in Leicestershire at the weekend and are currently waiting for a judge to decide if they face charges.
It is understood the couple are planning their own forensic tests amid suspicion about claims made by detectives in interviews with Kate McCann.
The McCanns appointed lawyers in Portugal and Britain after being named as formal suspects - but they will not be paid out of money donated by well-wishers.
A statement made by Esther McVey from the board of Madeleine's Fund said payment of legal defence costs would be legally permissible so long as they were repaid in the event of a guilty conviction.
However, she said the fund's directors recognised the spirit in which the generous donations were given and decided not to pay for the McCanns' legal costs.
"We stress that Gerry and Kate have not asked for these costs to be paid," she said.
So far donations totalling £1,036,104.17 have been received for Madeleine's Fund: Leaving No Stone Unturned, according to the official campaign website. http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/6992372.stm
Once money has been donated to a company it belongs to the company. The board of directors are in charge of the company's funds and decide how to spend them. There are six directors and they may decide to pay the costs of the McCann's failed litigation. If they do, it will be up to them, if challenged, to explain how that fits with their duty, as directors, to promote the long-term success of the company.
At Y/e March 2016 the restricted funds stood at £ 547, 236. If the directors use these funds to pay the McCann's court costs that will not, in my opinion, be the purpose for which they were donated. In theory therefore the donor (Kate McCann) could ask for her donation to be repaid to her. As she and her husband would benefit from the unauthorised expenditure she may, of course, decide not to do that.
Title: Re: Supreme Court rules against the McCanns in damages case.
Post by: Mr Gray on February 03, 2017, 07:45:11 AM
Once money has been donated to a company it belongs to the company. The board of directors are in charge of the company's funds and decide how to spend them. There are six directors and they may decide to pay the costs of the McCann's failed litigation. If they do, it will be up to them, if challenged, to explain how that fits with their duty, as directors, to promote the long-term success of the company.
At Y/e March 2016 the restricted funds stood at £ 547, 236. If the directors use these funds to pay the McCann's court costs that will not, in my opinion, be the purpose for which they were donated. In theory therefore the donor (Kate McCann) could ask for her donation to be repaid to her. As she and her husband would benefit from the unauthorised expenditure she may, of course, decide not to do that.
It will depend on how much the costs are and how much the McCanns have It will depend on whether amaral can and wants to sue them They do not have to involve the fund if they do not wish to Alice has now mentioned bankruptcy which I first raised The McCanns will not be destitute and have the ability to earn a fortune if they wish Once OG is finished they can say a lot more about what has happened
Title: Re: Supreme Court rules against the McCanns in damages case.
Post by: Mr Gray on February 03, 2017, 07:47:59 AM
All this talk of directors loans is unimportant It's just another way of taking money out of the company It may well be the McCanns don't want to involve the company
Title: Re: Supreme Court rules against the McCanns in damages case.
Post by: stephen25000 on February 03, 2017, 07:50:59 AM
After a long haul their efforts ... and theirs alone ... have achieved the feat of getting the Policia Judicaria and the Met to investigate ~ reopen Madeleine's case ~ and conduct an intensive search for her.
The world has watched that happen and note has been taken of the implications of that.
I would imagine that the verdict of the supreme court might be puzzling to people who are living in the present and not in the past. My opinion of the Portuguese judgement couldn't be lower but that is of no import, the danger for Portugal may be that world opinion may also reflect that by what if nothing else is a monumental PR mess.
There is indeed much more than the money awarded to the defendant by the court to be considered here.
Let's get a few facts straight.
The Mccann's lost the other day, big time.
For several years, they asked for a review of the case, and access to the files.
The time the case was re-opened, occurred after Rebekah Brooks in the Sun asked David Cameron to do so. The Sun of course already had a deal with the Mccann's as regards serialization rights, which might be termed a conflict of interest.
Meanwhile, throughout almost 10 years, the case has had extensive publicity worldwide, and not a trace of Madeleine has emerged, let alone how she disappeared from the apartment.
So, I would like to know, exactly what kind of victory is that.
Title: Re: Supreme Court rules against the McCanns in damages case.
Post by: Mr Gray on February 03, 2017, 07:51:57 AM
Whilst OG is still running and the Portuguese investigation is still open then the McCanns have to be careful what they say Once the Portuguese investigation is closed it might be different A picture of the bruised Leonora Cipriano on the front page of the papers might be a good start
Title: Re: Supreme Court rules against the McCanns in damages case.
Post by: Mr Gray on February 03, 2017, 07:53:42 AM
For several years, they asked for a review of the case, and access to the files.
The time the case was re-opened, occurred after Rebekah Brooks in the Sun asked David Cameron to do so. The Sun of course already had a deal with the Mccann's as regards serialization rights, which might be termed a conflict of interest.
Meanwhile, throughout almost 10 years, the case has had extensive publicity worldwide, and not a trace of Madeleine has emerged, let alone how she disappeared from the apartment.
So, I would like to know, exactly what kind of victory is that.
The McCanns will come back stronger imo Wait and see
Title: Re: Supreme Court rules against the McCanns in damages case.
Post by: Eleanor on February 03, 2017, 08:26:21 AM
Let's stop the sniping now, if you please. This is not a request.
Title: Re: Supreme Court rules against the McCanns in damages case.
Post by: Brietta on February 03, 2017, 08:29:25 AM
What it means is that no money donated by members of the public has been used to pay legal fees. Which is one of the oft times 'questionings' people ponder and post about ... even on this thread.
Title: Re: Supreme Court rules against the McCanns in damages case.
Post by: G-Unit on February 03, 2017, 08:34:04 AM
It will depend on how much the costs are and how much the McCanns have It will depend on whether amaral can and wants to sue them They do not have to involve the fund if they do not wish to Alice has now mentioned bankruptcy which I first raised The McCanns will not be destitute and have the ability to earn a fortune if they wish Once OG is finished they can say a lot more about what has happened
Of course we don't know what the McCanns have, but sacking Mitchell was said to be a money saving exercise by the company in expectation of losing this case. The inference has always been that they would turn to the Fund to bail them out.
If they go bankrupt they will have to resign as directors of the company. You think they could earn a fortune, but that's just speculation. Raising money to search for a lost daughter is one thing. Raising money to pay Portuguese court costs is another.
I don't know what you think they could add to what they have already said.
Title: Re: Supreme Court rules against the McCanns in damages case.
Post by: Mr Gray on February 03, 2017, 08:36:32 AM
Of course we don't know what the McCanns have, but sacking Mitchell was said to be a money saving exercise by the company in expectation of losing this case. The inference has always been that they would turn to the Fund to bail them out.
If they go bankrupt they will have to resign as directors of the company. You think they could earn a fortune, but that's just speculation. Raising money to search for a lost daughter is one thing. Raising money to pay Portuguese court costs is another.
I don't know what you think they could add to what they have already said.
Sorry to disappoint you but the McCann earning power is phenomenal That is a fact
Title: Re: Supreme Court rules against the McCanns in damages case.
Post by: carlymichelle on February 03, 2017, 08:44:31 AM
For several years, they asked for a review of the case, and access to the files.
The time the case was re-opened, occurred after Rebekah Brooks in the Sun asked David Cameron to do so. The Sun of course already had a deal with the Mccann's as regards serialization rights, which might be termed a conflict of interest.
Meanwhile, throughout almost 10 years, the case has had extensive publicity worldwide, and not a trace of Madeleine has emerged, let alone how she disappeared from the apartment.
So, I would like to know, exactly what kind of victory is that.
8@??)( well said
Title: Re: Supreme Court rules against the McCanns in damages case.
Post by: stephen25000 on February 03, 2017, 08:57:36 AM
What it means is that no money donated by members of the public has been used to pay legal fees. Which is one of the oft times 'questionings' people ponder and post about ... even on this thread.
The point is not where the money came from, the point is who the money belongs to. It belongs to Madeleine's Fund and the objects of the company are;
To secure the safe return to her family of Madeleine McCann who was abducted in Praia da Luz, Portugal on Thursday 3rd May 2007; To procure that Madeleine's abduction is thoroughly investigated and that her abductors, as well as those who played or play any part in assisting them, are identified and brought to justice
The decision the directors may have to make is whether paying Portuguese court costs owed by the McCanns can be said to fulfil the company's objects.
Title: Re: Supreme Court rules against the McCanns in damages case.
Post by: Mr Gray on February 03, 2017, 09:40:23 AM
The point is not where the money came from, the point is who the money belongs to. It belongs to Madeleine's Fund and the objects of the company are;
To secure the safe return to her family of Madeleine McCann who was abducted in Praia da Luz, Portugal on Thursday 3rd May 2007; To procure that Madeleine's abduction is thoroughly investigated and that her abductors, as well as those who played or play any part in assisting them, are identified and brought to justice
The decision the directors may have to make is whether paying Portuguese court costs owed by the McCanns can be said to fulfil the company's objects.
It will not be difficult to argue that the court case was to help the search and therefore the costs are legitimate
Title: Re: Supreme Court rules against the McCanns in damages case.
Post by: stephen25000 on February 03, 2017, 09:43:01 AM
After a long haul their efforts ... and theirs alone ... have achieved the feat of getting the Policia Judicaria and the Met to investigate ~ reopen Madeleine's case ~ and conduct an intensive search for her.
The world has watched that happen and note has been taken of the implications of that.
I would imagine that the verdict of the supreme court might be puzzling to people who are living in the present and not in the past. My opinion of the Portuguese judgement couldn't be lower but that is of no import, the danger for Portugal may be that world opinion may also reflect that by what if nothing else is a monumental PR mess.
There is indeed much more than the money awarded to the defendant by the court to be considered here.
Who knows.
If Operation Grange find Madeleine alive, she may, yet, get to read Amaral's book.
That would be interesting.
Title: Re: Supreme Court rules against the McCanns in damages case.
Post by: Mr Gray on February 03, 2017, 10:28:56 AM
Because in there option the book was harming the search
Is opinion enough? Up until here, perhaps;
11. Because of the statements made by defendant Gonçalo Amaral in the book, in the documentary and in the interview to Correio da Manhã, the Polícia Judiciária stopped collecting information and investigating the disappearance of Madeleine McCann?
Not proved.
Title: Re: Supreme Court rules against the McCanns in damages case.
Post by: Mr Gray on February 03, 2017, 10:42:17 AM
11. Because of the statements made by defendant Gonçalo Amaral in the book, in the documentary and in the interview to Correio da Manhã, the Polícia Judiciária stopped collecting information and investigating the disappearance of Madeleine McCann?
Not proved.
Not proved to the satisfaction of the Portuguese court but that decision has no relevance outside of Portugal Next
Title: Re: Supreme Court rules against the McCanns in damages case.
Post by: G-Unit on February 03, 2017, 11:03:48 AM
Not proved to the satisfaction of the Portuguese court but that decision has no relevance outside of Portugal Next
You believe the directors are in their rights to act on their opinions. It may be that good governance should be based on a little more than mere opinion.
Title: Re: Supreme Court rules against the McCanns in damages case.
Post by: Mr Gray on February 03, 2017, 11:15:31 AM
You believe the directors are in their rights to act on their opinions. It may be that good governance should be based on a little more than mere opinion.
Directors act on their opinion all the time Portuguese court decisions are not important By uk standards amaral has clearly libelled the McCanns But the Portuguese court say no That's why amaral has not published his book in the uk
Title: Re: Supreme Court rules against the McCanns in damages case.
Post by: stephen25000 on February 03, 2017, 11:18:47 AM
It's already in the UK.
Easily obtained.
Title: Re: Supreme Court rules against the McCanns in damages case.
Post by: carlymichelle on February 03, 2017, 11:23:08 AM
It does seem Carly, that some people haven't got the message and/or are in denial.
Not in denial but aware of the facts I said it cannot be published in the uk The book cannot be promoted or sold in the uk so amaral has to let people read it for free
Title: Re: Supreme Court rules against the McCanns in damages case.
Post by: barrier on February 03, 2017, 12:05:22 PM
11. Because of the statements made by defendant Gonçalo Amaral in the book, in the documentary and in the interview to Correio da Manhã, the Polícia Judiciária stopped collecting information and investigating the disappearance of Madeleine McCann?
Hmmm ... it seems you know as much about it as I do.
One question you may actually be able to answer though ... what exactly is the "The Brill Building"?
Let's take it from the top. If there is a directors loan account it has to show on the balance sheet. The balance sheet is the one item which MUST be available to the public through Companies House. A PDF of all the balance sheets since inception of "The Fund" is available for down load on the appropriate Companies House web page. There would seem to be no Directors Loans showing on the balance sheets. I conclude there are none because to not show them is illegal. In the alacrity of some to show the McCanns being masters of the uninverse the implication is "The Fund" have somehow hidden something. Paradoxically I do not think "The Fund" is stupid enough to act illegally whereas seemingly some supporters do.
The Brill Building was/is place in New York where song writers sat, like battery hens, penning songs all day. I sometimes think there is something similar at the back of this when more than one person starts to trot out the same expressions, words..................etc. Check out Amos 3.3.
Title: Re: Supreme Court rules against the McCanns in damages case.
Post by: colombosstogey on February 03, 2017, 12:29:10 PM
For several years, they asked for a review of the case, and access to the files.
The time the case was re-opened, occurred after Rebekah Brooks in the Sun asked David Cameron to do so. The Sun of course already had a deal with the Mccann's as regards serialization rights, which might be termed a conflict of interest.
Meanwhile, throughout almost 10 years, the case has had extensive publicity worldwide, and not a trace of Madeleine has emerged, let alone how she disappeared from the apartment.
So, I would like to know, exactly what kind of victory is that.
I havent been on for ages, as the saga just went on and on, but this is wonderful news I bet Amaral is beaming.
Since the day the child went missing i havent changed my mind, and I doubt Amaral has either. How anyone can think this is a VICTORY for the McCanns is beyond me. I think its a victory a VICTORY FOR JUSTICE FOR AMARAL who had his life ruined by these people. They should have left well alone, and perhaps then people would have stopped wanting to read his book.
I am so happy this is finally over and maybe now the McCanns will move on, as like you said there is no trace of the child, someone knows what happened to her, but we will never know i dont think anyway.
Title: Re: Supreme Court rules against the McCanns in damages case.
Post by: stephen25000 on February 03, 2017, 12:37:11 PM
I havent been on for ages, as the saga just went on and on, but this is wonderful news I bet Amaral is beaming.
Since the day the child went missing i havent changed my mind, and I doubt Amaral has either. How anyone can think this is a VICTORY for the McCanns is beyond me. I think its a victory a VICTORY FOR JUSTICE FOR AMARAL who had his life ruined by these people. They should have left well alone, and perhaps then people would have stopped wanting to read his book.
I am so happy this is finally over and maybe now the McCanns will move on, as like you said there is no trace of the child, someone knows what happened to her, but we will never know i dont think anyway.
Excellent post. 8@??)( 8@??)( 8@??)(
Title: Re: Supreme Court rules against the McCanns in damages case.
Post by: Alice Purjorick on February 03, 2017, 12:41:44 PM
Directors act on their opinion all the time Portuguese court decisions are not important By uk standards amaral has clearly libelled the McCanns But the Portuguese court say no That's why amaral has not published his book in the uk
Effective directors form their opinions upon advice or research. That can be justified if questioned. If the Fund directors took advice or did research the McCanns could have done with using it in court.
If the McCanns fail to pay what they owe to the Portuguese courts I expect we will learn what the official attitude to Portuguese court decisions is.
Duarte thought she understood the Portuguese legal system, but she got it wrong. Your opinion about UK libel laws could also be wrong.
Amaral has not published his book in the UK yet.
Title: Re: Supreme Court rules against the McCanns in damages case.
Post by: xtina on February 03, 2017, 01:15:26 PM
G A was the officer on the case .....he may know a lot more .than he has already wrote about .
why are the mccs .so desperate to get rid of him at any cost .....
they have to reap the seeds they sowed ...
they left maddie to her fate....
they brought all this on themselves......
I don't know how they dare even consider ....the court of humane rights.......................
what about maddie ....what about her rights.....her rights of life .....her rights of protection
all they think about is themselves ....hopefully now will be the time .they have to face up to what they did........
Title: Re: Supreme Court rules against the McCanns in damages case.
Post by: carlymichelle on February 03, 2017, 01:21:12 PM
G A was the officer on the case .....he may know a lot more .than he has already wrote about .
why are the mccs .so desperate to get rid of him at any cost .....
they have to reap the seeds they sowed ...
they left maddie to her fate....
they brought all this on themselves......
I don't know how they dare even consider ....the court of humane rights.......................
what about maddie ....what about her rights.....her rights of life .....her rights of protection
all they think about is themselves ....hopefully now will be the time .they have to face up to what they did........
no one forced them to harrass amaral for 8 years did they??
Title: Re: Supreme Court rules against the McCanns in damages case.
Post by: Alice Purjorick on February 03, 2017, 01:29:04 PM
Maybe time for a rerun of this from about three years ago to reminf folk where it went wrong:
Whilst freezing my backside on the family three holer in the shack out back I wondered if Judge Maria Emília de Melo e Castro has to pay back part of her salary due to the entertainment value of this trial? Imagine the dinner table “Did you have a good day in court darling?” she chuckles as she raises her wine glass “ you would never believe what those [insert the posh Portuguese word for the plural of tosser in here] have been up to today dear ………..”. Consider: One witness turns up with an interpreter who isn’t up to the mark and the judge has to help her out (Julio Geordio rides again). The same witness professes to be an expert on the case and shows that she actually don’t know A from a bulls foot; another witness sits in a foreign court spits his dummy out, slags off the local judiciary then says he didn’t read the book because he knew it was lies without reading it. Two witnesses are sent home because they can’t bring anything to the party. One witness (President of the Bar Council?) makes himself ineligible because he has taken his eye off the ball. One witness doesn’t answer a question in case he drops his mate in it so the judge answers it for him. Two witnesses represent both sides. The Judge puts several fleas in several ears reminding various folk it is HER job to compare the book and the police reports not theirs. At the end of the bout it’s difficult to see whether anyone actually laid a glove on an opponent. Before the judges’ cards have been handed to the referee for counting, one contestant says he thinks the opposition played a ringer and another contestant asks to have recount on a previous round. It really is beyond parody. One inclines to the view that in wasn’t in the script that it should ever wind up in court.
Now as I recall several parties no names no pack drill declared then it was a significant victory for the McCanns.
Title: Re: Supreme Court rules against the McCanns in damages case.
Post by: Mr Gray on February 03, 2017, 01:30:12 PM
Effective directors form their opinions upon advice or research. That can be justified if questioned. If the Fund directors took advice or did research the McCanns could have done with using it in court.
If the McCanns fail to pay what they owe to the Portuguese courts I expect we will learn what the official attitude to Portuguese court decisions is.
Duarte thought she understood the Portuguese legal system, but she got it wrong. Your opinion about UK libel laws could also be wrong.
Amaral has not published his book in the UK yet.
It isn't my opinion it's a fact That's why amaral hasn't and won't publish in the uk
Title: Re: Supreme Court rules against the McCanns in damages case.
Post by: stephen25000 on February 03, 2017, 01:36:56 PM
It is directly related to the judgement that it has no bearing on the uk libel question Libel is crystal clear in the uk and the book would be 100 % libellous
Title: Re: Supreme Court rules against the McCanns in damages case.
Post by: Mr Gray on February 03, 2017, 02:13:53 PM
Maybe time for a rerun of this from about three years ago to reminf folk where it went wrong:
Whilst freezing my backside on the family three holer in the shack out back I wondered if Judge Maria Emília de Melo e Castro has to pay back part of her salary due to the entertainment value of this trial? Imagine the dinner table “Did you have a good day in court darling?” she chuckles as she raises her wine glass “ you would never believe what those [insert the posh Portuguese word for the plural of tosser in here] have been up to today dear ………..”. Consider: One witness turns up with an interpreter who isn’t up to the mark and the judge has to help her out (Julio Geordio rides again). The same witness professes to be an expert on the case and shows that she actually don’t know A from a bulls foot; another witness sits in a foreign court spits his dummy out, slags off the local judiciary then says he didn’t read the book because he knew it was lies without reading it. Two witnesses are sent home because they can’t bring anything to the party. One witness (President of the Bar Council?) makes himself ineligible because he has taken his eye off the ball. One witness doesn’t answer a question in case he drops his mate in it so the judge answers it for him. Two witnesses represent both sides. The Judge puts several fleas in several ears reminding various folk it is HER job to compare the book and the police reports not theirs. At the end of the bout it’s difficult to see whether anyone actually laid a glove on an opponent. Before the judges’ cards have been handed to the referee for counting, one contestant says he thinks the opposition played a ringer and another contestant asks to have recount on a previous round. It really is beyond parody. One inclines to the view that in wasn’t in the script that it should ever wind up in court.
Now as I recall several parties no names no pack drill declared then it was a significant victory for the McCanns.
And that trial was a significant victory for the mccanns
Title: Re: Supreme Court rules against the McCanns in damages case.
Post by: Brietta on February 03, 2017, 02:24:20 PM
I havent been on for ages, as the saga just went on and on, but this is wonderful news I bet Amaral is beaming.
Since the day the child went missing i havent changed my mind, and I doubt Amaral has either. How anyone can think this is a VICTORY for the McCanns is beyond me. I think its a victory a VICTORY FOR JUSTICE FOR AMARAL who had his life ruined by these people. They should have left well alone, and perhaps then people would have stopped wanting to read his book.
I am so happy this is finally over and maybe now the McCanns will move on, as like you said there is no trace of the child, someone knows what happened to her, but we will never know i dont think anyway.
What an extraordinary post.
It appears that you misunderstand that Madeleine McCann disappeared while on holiday in Portugal and the Portuguese authorities gave up on her to quote you, “Since the day the child went missing”.
Putting the seal on that when her case was archived in July 2008. Meaning that after just more than a year from the date of her disappearance she was written off when her case was to all effect and purposes ~ closed.
An action surely unprecedented in the case of a missing child in any civilised society in the world. One in total abrogation of the rights of the child. Amaral didn’t need … to quote you again … “VICTORY FOR JUSTICE FOR AMARAL”. The justice should have been for Madeleine.
Amaral didn’t need to write his exploitative book … but the McCanns did have to continue searching for their daughter … no one else was! and Amaral's book exploiting her wasn't helping.
How can you possibly suggest the McCanns can “move on”? Their daughter is missing! Or are you also one of those who make the comparison to a missing pussy cat?
Game set and match for those who delight in the victory of a man whose incompetence may have fatally compromised an investigation into a missing child, which his sacking from the case was too little too late to prevent.
The failed action which was taken on behalf of Madeleine McCann is not the end of it by a long chalk. Which is something those who have written her off as dead without one iota of proof to back up Amaral’s opinion … would never ever hope to understand.
Title: Re: Supreme Court rules against the McCanns in damages case.
Post by: G-Unit on February 03, 2017, 02:40:33 PM
And that trial was a significant victory for the mccanns
Yeah ! that trial has just finished. Round One: 1.2MM up for grabs of which 700k was rejected. Round Two: the remaining 500k was rejected Round Three: all referees and judges agree that all 1.2MM be rejected case dismissed. The defendants costs all three (4?) of them to be born by the plaintiffs. Explain how that is a significant victory within the context of the original objective? The book has been freely available on the internet since God was a boy.
Title: Re: Supreme Court rules against the McCanns in damages case.
Post by: stephen25000 on February 03, 2017, 02:45:55 PM
It appears that you misunderstand that Madeleine McCann disappeared while on holiday in Portugal and the Portuguese authorities gave up on her to quote you, “Since the day the child went missing”.
Putting the seal on that when her case was archived in July 2008. Meaning that after just more than a year from the date of her disappearance she was written off when her case was to all effect and purposes ~ closed.
An action surely unprecedented in the case of a missing child in any civilised society in the world. One in total abrogation of the rights of the child. Amaral didn’t need … to quote you again … “VICTORY FOR JUSTICE FOR AMARAL”. The justice should have been for Madeleine.
Amaral didn’t need to write his exploitative book … but the McCanns did have to continue searching for their daughter … no one else was! and Amaral's book exploiting her wasn't helping.
How can you possibly suggest the McCanns can “move on”? Their daughter is missing! Or are you also one of those who make the comparison to a missing pussy cat?
Game set and match for those who delight in the victory of a man whose incompetence may have fatally compromised an investigation into a missing child, which his sacking from the case was too little too late to prevent.
The failed action which was taken on behalf of Madeleine McCann is not the end of it by a long chalk. Which is something those who have written her off as dead without one iota of proof to back up Amaral’s opinion … would never ever hope to understand.
Colombosstogey's post was excellent and succinctly put.
That you won't agree with it , is par for the course, as you have never criticized what the Mccann's did, but reserve your criticism for anyone who doesn't agree with the mccann's version of events, or investigated them.
There is absolutely no evidence that Amaral's book interfered with any 'search'.
That is merely the mantra repeated by the McCann's and some of their followers.
Title: Re: Supreme Court rules against the McCanns in damages case.
Post by: barrier on February 03, 2017, 02:45:55 PM
Yeah ! that trial has just finished. Round One: 1.2MM up for grabs of which 700k was rejected. Round Two: the remaining 500k was rejected Round Three: all referees and judges agree that all 1.2MM be rejected case dismissed. The defendants costs all three (4?) of them to be born by the plaintiffs. Explain how that is a significant victory within the context of the original objective? The book has been freely available on the internet since God was a boy.
I wondering if some aren't reading about a completely different case.
Title: Re: Supreme Court rules against the McCanns in damages case.
Post by: Alice Purjorick on February 03, 2017, 02:47:21 PM
It is directly related to the judgement that it has no bearing on the uk libel question Libel is crystal clear in the uk and the book would be 100 % libellous
Not under the present law.
Title: Re: Supreme Court rules against the McCanns in damages case.
Post by: Alice Purjorick on February 03, 2017, 02:50:39 PM
I wondering if some aren't reading about a completely different case.
People see what they want to see and believe what they want to believe. This whole case has demonstrated that from the very beginning.
Title: Re: Supreme Court rules against the McCanns in damages case.
Post by: xtina on February 03, 2017, 03:48:57 PM
nearly ten year on ...........and what have we got
G A won the libel action ...the mccs lost ....against banning the book
millions and millions spent .............and still nothing
proof of the abduction ........still nothing
so nearly ten year on ....
G A officer in the case from the beginning ......thinks mccs are involved ....
still nothing .zilch .zero ..that maddie was abducted .....
Title: Re: Supreme Court rules against the McCanns in damages case.
Post by: jassi on February 03, 2017, 03:56:06 PM
A couple of months and we'll be in April - when the money runs out. Will there be another extension or will OG have run out of the one last thing to investigate. Will the Home Office grant these extensions indefinitely or will they finally say that's it, no more?
Title: Re: Supreme Court rules against the McCanns in damages case.
Post by: Alfie on February 03, 2017, 03:59:44 PM
They were granted 40% of their claim, 60% was dismissed. Not a resounding victory by any normal person's measurement.
And despite the fact that 60% of their claim was rejected, they were still awarded the largest libel payout in Portuguese history of circa £500k- if only I could have had such a failure I'd be quite happy with that. If it had been such a failure for the McCanns why wasn't it them appealing the decision rather than Amaral?
Title: Re: Supreme Court rules against the McCanns in damages case.
Post by: Alfie on February 03, 2017, 04:00:19 PM
A couple of months and we'll be in April - when the money runs out. Will there be another extension or will OG have run out of the one last thing to investigate. Will the Home Office grant these extensions indefinitely or will they finally say that's it, no more?
Stay tuned for another episode of "The World Turns" to find out - don't go away now!
Title: Re: Supreme Court rules against the McCanns in damages case.
Post by: stephen25000 on February 03, 2017, 04:05:07 PM
As a reminder the McCann's initial award had no precident in Portugal's legal history.
Ultimately, the law was enforced and abided by.
Title: Re: Supreme Court rules against the McCanns in damages case.
Post by: faithlilly on February 03, 2017, 04:09:56 PM
And despite the fact that 60% of their claim was rejected, they were still awarded the largest libel payout in Portuguese history of circa £500k- if only I could have had such a failure I'd be quite happy with that. If it had been such a failure for the McCanns why wasn't it them appealing the decision rather than Amaral?
It would have looked rather greedy wouldn't it ? After all it was never about the money.
Title: Re: Supreme Court rules against the McCanns in damages case.
Post by: Robittybob1 on February 03, 2017, 04:25:44 PM
He wasn't complaining, he was defending himself legally against their claims. He would probably have done so if McCanns had only claimed a penny in damages.
Title: Re: Supreme Court rules against the McCanns in damages case.
Post by: G-Unit on February 03, 2017, 04:32:56 PM
And despite the fact that 60% of their claim was rejected, they were still awarded the largest libel payout in Portuguese history of circa £500k- if only I could have had such a failure I'd be quite happy with that. If it had been such a failure for the McCanns why wasn't it them appealing the decision rather than Amaral?
I have already raised that point Alfie. Despite going for the largest payout in Portuguese history the McCanns were keen to point out that it wasn't about the money, it was about the damage to the children. The children's claims were dismissed though, and they didn't appeal on their behalf. It seems the damage to the children wasn't so important after all.
Title: Re: Supreme Court rules against the McCanns in damages case.
Post by: G-Unit on February 03, 2017, 04:40:18 PM
If you mean Amaral he appealed because the judge got it wrong. His freedom of speech was not constrained by his former employment and he was not expected to uphold the presumption of innocence because he wasn't a court official and they weren't suspects.
You may be confusing him with the McCanns; they have complained ad nauseum.
Title: Re: Supreme Court rules against the McCanns in damages case.
Post by: Erngath on February 03, 2017, 04:41:17 PM
It appears that you misunderstand that Madeleine McCann disappeared while on holiday in Portugal and the Portuguese authorities gave up on her to quote you, “Since the day the child went missing”.
Putting the seal on that when her case was archived in July 2008. Meaning that after just more than a year from the date of her disappearance she was written off when her case was to all effect and purposes ~ closed.
An action surely unprecedented in the case of a missing child in any civilised society in the world. One in total abrogation of the rights of the child. Amaral didn’t need … to quote you again … “VICTORY FOR JUSTICE FOR AMARAL”. The justice should have been for Madeleine.
Amaral didn’t need to write his exploitative book … but the McCanns did have to continue searching for their daughter … no one else was! and Amaral's book exploiting her wasn't helping.
How can you possibly suggest the McCanns can “move on”? Their daughter is missing! Or are you also one of those who make the comparison to a missing pussy cat?
Game set and match for those who delight in the victory of a man whose incompetence may have fatally compromised an investigation into a missing child, which his sacking from the case was too little too late to prevent.
The failed action which was taken on behalf of Madeleine McCann is not the end of it by a long chalk. Which is something those who have written her off as dead without one iota of proof to back up Amaral’s opinion … would never ever hope to understand.
8@??)( Excellent post Brietta
Title: Re: Supreme Court rules against the McCanns in damages case.
Post by: barrier on February 03, 2017, 04:45:21 PM
And despite the fact that 60% of their claim was rejected, they were still awarded the largest libel payout in Portuguese history of circa £500k- if only I could have had such a failure I'd be quite happy with that. If it had been such a failure for the McCanns why wasn't it them appealing the decision rather than Amaral?
Remind the reader again just how much of this award was actually paid?
Title: Re: Supreme Court rules against the McCanns in damages case.
Post by: Alfie on February 03, 2017, 05:14:58 PM
I have already raised that point Alfie. Despite going for the largest payout in Portuguese history the McCanns were keen to point out that it wasn't about the money, it was about the damage to the children. The children's claims were dismissed though, and they didn't appeal on their behalf. It seems the damage to the children wasn't so important after all.
I'm sorry you seem to be shifting the goalposts - I was responding to a post that claimed the initial court judgment was a failure for the McCanns, clearly it was not unless £500k damages awarded can be deemed a failure. Appealing for more on top of the largest payout in Portuguese history would indeed have looked somewhat money-grabbing and ungracious.
Title: Re: Supreme Court rules against the McCanns in damages case.
Post by: Alfie on February 03, 2017, 05:15:41 PM
I'm sorry you seem to be shifting the goalposts - I was responding to a post that claimed the initial court judgment was a failure for the McCanns, clearly it was not unless £500k damages awarded can be deemed a failure. Appealing for more on top of the largest payout in Portuguese history would indeed have looked somewhat money-grabbing and ungracious.
500K was the watered down amount as decreed by the judge. They had aimed and hoped for far, far more.
Title: Re: Supreme Court rules against the McCanns in damages case.
Post by: Alice Purjorick on February 03, 2017, 05:34:08 PM
And despite the fact that 60% of their claim was rejected, they were still awarded the largest libel payout in Portuguese history of circa £500k- if only I could have had such a failure I'd be quite happy with that. If it had been such a failure for the McCanns why wasn't it them appealing the decision rather than Amaral?
You tell us squire. We would not wish to spoil your moment to make an earth shattering denouement. It would make a change from your asking questions.
Title: Re: Supreme Court rules against the McCanns in damages case.
Post by: Alice Purjorick on February 03, 2017, 05:35:52 PM
He wasn't complaining, he was defending himself legally against their claims. He would probably have done so if McCanns had only claimed a penny in damages.
You have an amazing imagination, jassi.
Title: Re: Supreme Court rules against the McCanns in damages case.
Post by: Alfie on February 03, 2017, 05:45:05 PM
500K was the watered down amount as decreed by the judge. They had aimed and hoped for far, far more.
I know that, but they were very satisfied with the amount they WERE awarded (an unprecedented amount) and only someone who'd fallen down the hole to Wonderland would have viewed it as a failure.
Title: Re: Supreme Court rules against the McCanns in damages case.
Post by: slartibartfast on February 03, 2017, 05:56:51 PM
And despite the fact that 60% of their claim was rejected, they were still awarded the largest libel payout in Portuguese history of circa £500k- if only I could have had such a failure I'd be quite happy with that. If it had been such a failure for the McCanns why wasn't it them appealing the decision rather than Amaral?
The amount awarded virtually guaranteed that an appeal would be made and gave that appeal a strong chance of success.
Title: Re: Supreme Court rules against the McCanns in damages case.
Post by: xtina on February 03, 2017, 05:59:22 PM
I know that, but they were very satisfied with the amount they WERE awarded (an unprecedented amount) and only someone who'd fallen down the hole to Wonderland would have viewed it as a failure.
well they haven't got it have they ..........
they lost.........
just as well it wasn.t about the money ........ @)(++(*
Title: Re: Supreme Court rules against the McCanns in damages case.
Post by: Alfie on February 03, 2017, 06:00:03 PM
The amount awarded virtually guaranteed that an appeal would be made and gave that appeal a strong chance of success.
Yes, I was thinking that this morning - sorry to sound like a con spira loon but I do think the first judge arrived at her initial judgment knowing that and with a good chance that ultimately the McCanns would lose and end up in the worst position possible. Very cunning of her I'm sure.
Title: Re: Supreme Court rules against the McCanns in damages case.
Post by: slartibartfast on February 03, 2017, 06:01:56 PM
It appears that you misunderstand that Madeleine McCann disappeared while on holiday in Portugal and the Portuguese authorities gave up on her to quote you, “Since the day the child went missing”.
Putting the seal on that when her case was archived in July 2008. Meaning that after just more than a year from the date of her disappearance she was written off when her case was to all effect and purposes ~ closed.
An action surely unprecedented in the case of a missing child in any civilised society in the world. One in total abrogation of the rights of the child. Amaral didn’t need … to quote you again … “VICTORY FOR JUSTICE FOR AMARAL”. The justice should have been for Madeleine.
Amaral didn’t need to write his exploitative book … but the McCanns did have to continue searching for their daughter … no one else was! and Amaral's book exploiting her wasn't helping.
How can you possibly suggest the McCanns can “move on”? Their daughter is missing! Or are you also one of those who make the comparison to a missing pussy cat?
Game set and match for those who delight in the victory of a man whose incompetence may have fatally compromised an investigation into a missing child, which his sacking from the case was too little too late to prevent.
The failed action which was taken on behalf of Madeleine McCann is not the end of it by a long chalk. Which is something those who have written her off as dead without one iota of proof to back up Amaral’s opinion … would never ever hope to understand.
Sadly, IMO, the trial had nothing to do with Madeleine...
Title: Re: Supreme Court rules against the McCanns in damages case.
Post by: Brietta on February 03, 2017, 06:12:51 PM
Sadly, IMO, the trial had nothing to do with Madeleine...
If perchance the day may come when she turns up alive it is entirely possible she might disagree with your assessment and the story promoted and put around of her death ... particularly as there is absolutely no evidence to substantiate such a belief.
Title: Re: Supreme Court rules against the McCanns in damages case.
Post by: Alice Purjorick on February 03, 2017, 06:42:10 PM
I am amazed* at the number of posters who remain in ignorance of the reasoning behind the award made by the trial judge despite the fact she spelt it out in more or less in words of one syllable in her judgement. Her judgement has been posted on here in numerous places. Read mark learn and inwardly digest.
*Then on the other hand maybe not.
Title: Re: Supreme Court rules against the McCanns in damages case.
Post by: stephen25000 on February 03, 2017, 06:50:52 PM
If perchance the day may come when she turns up alive it is entirely possible she might disagree with your assessment and the story promoted and put around of her death ... particularly as there is absolutely no evidence to substantiate such a belief.
I would say that after nearly 10 years and not 1 trace of her would be possible evidence of her death.
Then we have the dogs indications.
Uncorroborated, but still there.
Title: Re: Supreme Court rules against the McCanns in damages case.
Post by: Robittybob1 on February 03, 2017, 07:08:51 PM
Yes, I was thinking that this morning - sorry to sound like a con spira loon but I do think the first judge arrived at her initial judgment knowing that and with a good chance that ultimately the McCanns would lose and end up in the worst position possible. Very cunning of her I'm sure.
Is that a scam that been used before? They get a lot more legal fees too.
Title: Re: Supreme Court rules against the McCanns in damages case.
Post by: pathfinder73 on February 03, 2017, 08:08:19 PM
MADDIE BIDDING WAR Madeleine McCann’s family at centre of TV chat show rights scrap on 10th anniversary of tot’s disappearance
A close friend of the McCann’s said: “They have been bombarded with offers from media around the world.
“They’re already got 30 sitting on the table and are getting new bids every other day particularly from the big American networks.
Kate did her last TV sofa chat with Scottish presenter Lorraine, a former Sun columnist, nearly three years ago.
Her pal said: “Kate likes Lorraine’s softly, softly approach and feels comfortable with her.
“She never asks too many searching questions.”
@)(++(*
Im quite glad to say I told you so...500K will seem like chicken feed compared to what the McCannns can now make...and this is only the beginning....they have moved on
Title: Re: Supreme Court rules against the McCanns in damages case.
Post by: Mr Gray on February 03, 2017, 08:23:27 PM
I would say that after nearly 10 years and not 1 trace of her would be possible evidence of her death.
Then we have the dogs indications.
Uncorroborated, but still there.
yes the dog.....pretty well proof there was a cadaver in the apartment...LOL Typical sceptic rubbish
Title: Re: Supreme Court rules against the McCanns in damages case.
Post by: Mr Gray on February 03, 2017, 08:25:34 PM
Its quite funny...the McCanns will make far far more by losing the case........it will be great for them to travel the world telling everyone how badly portugal has treated them. they can show what the pj did to Leonora cipriano....
whats amaral up to
Title: Re: Supreme Court rules against the McCanns in damages case.
Post by: ferryman on February 03, 2017, 08:26:21 PM
Plenty else does.
But this, above all else, is what makes a mockery of the supreme-court ruling:
From the Book of Many Lies:
Quote
After a week of intense work, Harrison presents the results of his study to my coordinating group. Even if we were expecting it, his conclusions confirm our worst fears. The most plausible scenario is the following: there is no doubt that Madeleine is dead, and her body is hidden somewhere in the area around Praia da Luz. He praises the quality of the work carried out by the Portuguese authorities in trying to find the little girl alive. According to him, the time has come to redirect the searches in order to find, this time, a body hidden in the surrounding area.
More in an edit ....
Penultimate sentence and paragraph of Harrison's final report.
Quote
I am currently of the opinion on the available information and statistical datasets that if death has occurred, that it is possible that Madeleine McCann’s body has been disposed into the sea at Praia da Luz. (See my second report entitled “NPIA OP TASK Search Doc Beach and Marine”).
Title: Re: Supreme Court rules against the McCanns in damages case.
Post by: carlymichelle on February 03, 2017, 08:26:32 PM
technicallyif the mcanns are as hard up with money as they say wouldnt the interview money have to go to paying back amaral /courts??
Title: Re: Supreme Court rules against the McCanns in damages case.
Post by: stephen25000 on February 03, 2017, 08:26:39 PM
Im quite glad to say I told you so...500K will seem like chicken feed compared to what the McCannns can now make...and this is only the beginning....they have moved on
B. Money.
..............and they haven't got a deal yet.
That is all it's ever been about, MONEY.
Title: Re: Supreme Court rules against the McCanns in damages case.
Post by: stephen25000 on February 03, 2017, 08:28:26 PM
technicallyif the mcanns are as hard up with money as they say wouldnt the interview money have to go to paying back amaral /courts??
we dont know how much that is but it will be peanuts compared to what the McCanns will earn.....they may pay it into the fund...may pay it into a trust for the children....
its just so funny
Title: Re: Supreme Court rules against the McCanns in damages case.
Post by: carlymichelle on February 03, 2017, 08:30:01 PM
Title: Re: Supreme Court rules against the McCanns in damages case.
Post by: stephen25000 on February 03, 2017, 08:34:43 PM
If the McCann's do a money deal, they deserve the consequences.
B. MONEY, no doubt about it.
..and Mccann supporters dare criticize Amaral, when the Mccanns have been and will continue to get money over Madeleine's disappearance.
Title: Re: Supreme Court rules against the McCanns in damages case.
Post by: ferryman on February 03, 2017, 08:36:59 PM
Quote
After a week of intense work, Harrison presents the results of his study to my coordinating group. Even if we were expecting it, his conclusions confirm our worst fears. The most plausible scenario is the following: there is no doubt that Madeleine is dead, and her body is hidden somewhere in the area around Praia da Luz. He praises the quality of the work carried out by the Portuguese authorities in trying to find the little girl alive. According to him, the time has come to redirect the searches in order to find, this time, a body hidden in the surrounding area.
And the penultimate sentence of Mark Harrison's final report:
Quote
I am currently of the opinion on the available information and statistical datasets that if death has occurred, that it is possible that Madeleine McCann’s body has been disposed into the sea at Praia da Luz. (See my second report entitled “NPIA OP TASK Search Doc Beach and Marine”).
How on earth was Amaral allowed to get away with that?
Title: Re: Supreme Court rules against the McCanns in damages case.
Post by: Mr Gray on February 03, 2017, 08:37:15 PM
amarals name will be trashed...without libel...they just have to tell the facts.....highlight all the short comings in the investigation,,,amarals conviction...how the portugues courts have allowed him to deny them their Human Rights... it is just going to be so funny
Title: Re: Supreme Court rules against the McCanns in damages case.
Post by: Mr Gray on February 03, 2017, 08:39:49 PM
And the penultimate sentence of Mark Harrison's final report:
How on earth was Amaral allowed to get away with that?
the McCanns have had to keep quiet whilst the trial was on...and the portuguese were stil "investigating" the gloves are now off and the sceptics are not going to like it...not a bit
Title: Re: Supreme Court rules against the McCanns in damages case.
Post by: stephen25000 on February 03, 2017, 08:40:33 PM
amarals name will be trashed...without libel...they just have to tell the facts.....highlight all the short comings in the investigation,,,amarals conviction...how the portugues courts have allowed him to deny them their Human Rights... it is just going to be so funny
It is the McCann's whose reputation is in tatters.
All about MONEY, MONEY, MONEY.
Title: Re: Supreme Court rules against the McCanns in damages case.
Post by: stephen25000 on February 03, 2017, 08:42:19 PM
the McCanns have had to keep quiet whilst the trial was on...and the portuguese were stil "investigating" the gloves are now off and the sceptics are not going to like it...not a bit
B. Money.
So can Amaral, and I look forward to the second book, and worldwide distribution, courtesy of the internet, and not a damn thing the Mccann's can do to stop it.
Title: Re: Supreme Court rules against the McCanns in damages case.
Post by: Mr Gray on February 03, 2017, 08:45:15 PM
So can Amaral, and I look forward to the second book, and worldwide distribution, courtesy of the internet, and not a damn thing the Mccann's can do to stop it.
worldwide book courtesy of the internet..like no royalties.....the McCanns will now be giving their side of the story and amaral willl not like it one bit
Title: Re: Supreme Court rules against the McCanns in damages case.
Post by: G-Unit on February 03, 2017, 08:46:13 PM
True or an attempt to get some bids coming in? Did the friend really say that about Lorraine? Do any of them engage brain before opening mouth?
Title: Re: Supreme Court rules against the McCanns in damages case.
Post by: Mr Gray on February 03, 2017, 08:48:36 PM
True or an attempt to get some bids coming in? Did the friend really say that about Lorraine? Do any of them engage brain before opening mouth?
it is obvious this would happen....I told you they would come back stronger....they have been kicked in the teeth and they have a lot of ammunition...it is going to be wonderful
Title: Re: Supreme Court rules against the McCanns in damages case.
Post by: Mr Gray on February 03, 2017, 08:49:52 PM
I think we will see leonora Ciprianos face in the paper with amarals role highlighted
Title: Re: Supreme Court rules against the McCanns in damages case.
Post by: Mr Gray on February 03, 2017, 08:50:22 PM
Following the Supreme Court decision, I have allowed more leeway than usual to members to express their sentiment.
But I have had enough.
It looks like a Friday night barney is kicking off.
Please don't waste your time. Or mine.
I have had enough.
I don't think some members had thought it through to when one door closes ... another one opens ... with the subsequent ramifications Davel pointed out
Title: Re: Supreme Court rules against the McCanns in damages case.
Post by: jassi on February 03, 2017, 09:08:04 PM
Time will tell. All else is mere fantasy
Title: Re: Supreme Court rules against the McCanns in damages case.
Post by: G-Unit on February 03, 2017, 09:09:25 PM
it is obvious this would happen....I told you they would come back stronger....they have been kicked in the teeth and they have a lot of ammunition...it is going to be wonderful
Do you really think that bragging about a bidding war for 10th Anniversary interviews is admirable behaviour? They have frittered away the money donated to them on dodgy detectives and doomed libel trials, but never mind, there's plenty more where that came from?
My prediction is that Kate McCann will speak to Lorraine Kelly. After all, she doesn't ask searching questions, even if ITV don't pay much. To get a big payout she would probably have to face someone who would want more answers.
Title: Re: Supreme Court rules against the McCanns in damages case.
Post by: stephen25000 on February 03, 2017, 09:10:10 PM
The ramifications for the mccann's have barely begun.
Title: Re: Supreme Court rules against the McCanns in damages case.
Post by: slartibartfast on February 03, 2017, 09:30:01 PM
I don't think some members had thought it through to when one door closes ... another one opens ... with the subsequent ramifications Davel pointed out
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3SDCOOI_mdQ
Title: Re: Supreme Court rules against the McCanns in damages case.
Post by: slartibartfast on February 03, 2017, 09:40:54 PM
In considering the two scenarios that Madeleine McCann has been murdered and her body disposed of by a person on foot or in a vehicle, I have reflected on the areas within zone 1 that have been previously searched or subject to forensic examination.
(Mark Harrison)
Will that do you?
Title: Re: Supreme Court rules against the McCanns in damages case.
Post by: Alice Purjorick on February 03, 2017, 09:57:02 PM
The article in Ye Olde Currant Bun refers to many quotes from "a pal" but like pie crust tis lacking in substance. The comments are interesting however.
Title: Re: Supreme Court rules against the McCanns in damages case.
Post by: Alfie on February 03, 2017, 10:04:08 PM
A typical example of the kind of incisive, well written comment that articles about the McCanns often inspire in online newspaper comment sections:
"Those murdering s..mbags need to be bought to justice! The media need to stop with the facade too, we all know they killed Mandy and there lies are slowely coming back to haunt them".
Title: Re: Supreme Court rules against the McCanns in damages case.
Post by: barrier on February 03, 2017, 10:04:26 PM
worldwide book courtesy of the internet..like no royalties.....the McCanns will now be giving their side of the story and amaral willl not like it one bit
Will they not be cautioned about an ongoing police investigation conducted in part by a brit police force,I would imagine there is not a lot they can say.Of course they can possibly rubbish Amaral giving his book more publicity,yep a win win all round.
Title: Re: Supreme Court rules against the McCanns in damages case.
Post by: slartibartfast on February 03, 2017, 10:09:22 PM
The article in Ye Olde Currant Bun refers to many quotes from "a pal" but like pie crust tis lacking in substance. The comments are interesting however.
it might refer to a pal.....but its quite obvious that this would happen......and thats why it doesnt surprise me....I am a little surprised it has happened so soon.
the portugues police have washed their hands of the whole thing...the mccanns can now tell the world how badly they have been treated by the PJ ....the portuguese press and the portuguese justice system. I for one cannot wait
Title: Re: Supreme Court rules against the McCanns in damages case.
Post by: Mr Gray on February 03, 2017, 10:10:53 PM
Will they not be cautioned about an ongoing police investigation conducted in part by a brit police force,I would imagine there is not a lot they can say.Of course they can possibly rubbish Amaral giving his book more publicity,yep a win win all round.
from what we have herad the investigation is over
Title: Re: Supreme Court rules against the McCanns in damages case.
Post by: slartibartfast on February 03, 2017, 10:10:57 PM
it might refer to a pal.....but its quite obvious that this would happen......and thats why it doesnt surprise me....I am a little surprised it has happened so soon.
the portugues police have washed their hands of the whole thing...the mccanns can now tell the world how badly they have been treated by the PJ ....the portuguese press and the portuguese justice system. I for one cannot wait
It would start to get embarrassing to HMG.
Title: Re: Supreme Court rules against the McCanns in damages case.
Post by: Mr Gray on February 03, 2017, 10:11:56 PM
Then again perhaps they have not.Theres nothing any where to indicate what OG are up to and rightly so. Just as we have tittle tattle on the 10th anniversary bidding war,its the same with OG.
Title: Re: Supreme Court rules against the McCanns in damages case.
Post by: Mr Gray on February 03, 2017, 10:27:31 PM
Do you really think that bragging about a bidding war for 10th Anniversary interviews is admirable behaviour? They have frittered away the money donated to them on dodgy detectives and doomed libel trials, but never mind, there's plenty more where that came from?
My prediction is that Kate McCann will speak to Lorraine Kelly. After all, she doesn't ask searching questions, even if ITV don't pay much. To get a big payout she would probably have to face someone who would want more answers.
When was the last time we heard from Gerry &%+((£
Title: Re: Supreme Court rules against the McCanns in damages case.
Post by: Mr Gray on February 03, 2017, 10:29:07 PM
it might refer to a pal.....but its quite obvious that this would happen......and thats why it doesnt surprise me....I am a little surprised it has happened so soon.
the portugues police have washed their hands of the whole thing...the mccanns can now tell the world how badly they have been treated by the PJ ....the portuguese press and the portuguese justice system. I for one cannot wait
And who will believe it? They have been plugging that line for ten years with no visible effect on Portugal's standing in the world. You my son are becoming what was known in military terminolgy as target fixation. It usually results in crash and burn by the target or having your ass flamed by something behind you you did not see..... 8(>((
Title: Re: Supreme Court rules against the McCanns in damages case.
Post by: Mr Gray on February 03, 2017, 10:35:29 PM
And who will believe it? They have been plugging that line for ten years with no visible effect on Portugal's standing in the world. You my son are becoming what was known in military terminolgy as target fixation. It usually results in crash and burn by the target or having your ass flamed by something behind you you did not see..... 8(>((
now you are getting desperate.....how interesting ...you will get at least two smileys for that post
Title: Re: Supreme Court rules against the McCanns in damages case.
Post by: ferryman on February 03, 2017, 10:36:29 PM
I stated a fact with the quote provided when challenged on the fact.
I wonder what...
Quote
I am currently of the opinion on the available information and statistical datasets that if death has occurred, that it is possible that Madeleine McCann’s body has been disposed into the sea at Praia da Luz. (See my second report entitled “NPIA OP TASK Search Doc Beach and Marine”).
... was that you posted earlier?
Title: Re: Supreme Court rules against the McCanns in damages case.
Post by: ShiningInLuz on February 03, 2017, 10:39:31 PM
I tried it politely.
I am not interested in polite any more.
THE TRADITIONAL FRIDAY NIGHT SHIN DIG IS NOT GOING TO HAPPEN.
Title: Re: Supreme Court rules against the McCanns in damages case.
Post by: ferryman on February 03, 2017, 10:39:59 PM
I sincerely hope he is. It just seems though that for someone who wishes to raise awareness of his missing daughter he's strangely quiet. In fact it's almost as if he's got sick of the whole circus. Kate though is doing a sterling job carrying the torch alone.
Title: Re: Supreme Court rules against the McCanns in damages case.
Post by: ferryman on February 03, 2017, 10:48:09 PM
Title: Re: Supreme Court rules against the McCanns in damages case.
Post by: ferryman on February 03, 2017, 10:58:00 PM
From chapter 16 of Amaral's Book of many lies:
Quote
After a week of intense work, Harrison presents the results of his study to my coordinating group. Even if we were expecting it, his conclusions confirm our worst fears. The most plausible scenario is the following: there is no doubt that Madeleine is dead, and her body is hidden somewhere in the area around Praia da Luz. He praises the quality of the work carried out by the Portuguese authorities in trying to find the little girl alive. According to him, the time has come to redirect the searches in order to find, this time, a body hidden in the surrounding area.
And the penultimate sentence of Mark Harrison's final report:
Quote
I am currently of the opinion on the available information and statistical datasets that if death has occurred, that it is possible that Madeleine McCann’s body has been disposed into the sea at Praia da Luz. (See my second report entitled “NPIA OP TASK Search Doc Beach and Marine”).
Title: Re: Supreme Court rules against the McCanns in damages case.
Post by: slartibartfast on February 03, 2017, 10:59:24 PM
Nope. The McCanns have still failed to win the damages trial. The McCanns have still incurred significant costs. The Press have still reported on GA's theories. The McCanns are in the U.K. and will have to be careful of what they say, as we are always being told it is easier to prove libel in the U.K. than PT.
Title: Re: Supreme Court rules against the McCanns in damages case.
Post by: Mr Gray on February 03, 2017, 11:11:35 PM
Nope. The McCanns have still failed to win the damages trial. The McCanns have still incurred significant costs. The Press have still reported on GA's theories. The McCanns are in the U.K. and will have to be careful of what they say, as we are always being told it is easier to prove libel in the U.K. than PT.
the mccanns can say a hell of a lot..amaral is a very easy target...his understanding of the evidence was flawed...he was sacked ...criminal conviction....but you dont have to take my word for it...wait and see
Title: Re: Supreme Court rules against the McCanns in damages case.
Post by: Mr Gray on February 03, 2017, 11:14:58 PM
and portugal is a very easy target....the mcCCanns human rights have been totally denied by their justice system
Title: Re: Supreme Court rules against the McCanns in damages case.
Post by: faithlilly on February 03, 2017, 11:19:55 PM
I think the McCanns need to be very careful what they say about Amaral for the foreseeable.
Title: Re: Supreme Court rules against the McCanns in damages case.
Post by: carlymichelle on February 03, 2017, 11:20:53 PM
the mccanns can say a hell of a lot..amaral is a very easy target...his understanding of the evidence was flawed...he was sacked ...criminal conviction....but you dont have to take my word for it...wait and see
Waiting!
Title: Re: Supreme Court rules against the McCanns in damages case.
Post by: faithlilly on February 03, 2017, 11:27:50 PM
You may have a long wait. The average man on the Clapham omnibus has no interest in the minutiae of the case or indeed Amaral's connection to it.
Title: Re: Supreme Court rules against the McCanns in damages case.
Post by: Brietta on February 03, 2017, 11:28:54 PM
Most people are capable of determining what is right what is wrong ~ what is just and what is unjust ~ what is acceptable and what is unacceptable.
Most fair minded people would consider that the treatment to which the parents of a missing child have been subjected reprehensible in the extreme.
I know of no one who would find it acceptable to be accused of being complicit in disposing of their child's dead body despite not a shred of evidence let alone proof to come close to suggesting any veracity to the claim.
Nor can I envisage a situation whereby innocent people have a book written about them specifically to reinforce these claims authored by a police officer who claims he retired specifically to do that.
In the interim the little girl who vanished on the third day of the month was written off as dead on the fourth day of the month by those who were duty bound to be looking out for her best interests and safeguarding her human right to be looked for.
The author of the book who was in charge of that investigation also carved out a new career as a media pundit promulgating his case above hers while doing his utmost to destroy her parent's reputation from every chat show sofa he made access to. All despite the fact Madeleine's parents had been fully investigated and cleared of the accusations with which they have been systematically hounded since their guilt was apparently decided on the fourth day of the month by that self appointed judge and jury.
In Portugal, the right to the presumption of innocence has been superseded by the right to say and write whatever vile untruths pass muster as falling under the umbrella of freedom of speech and honour.
The highest court in Portugal has decreed that is acceptable. In my opinion, that is nothing at all to be proud of or expect the civilised world not to wonder about.
Title: Re: Supreme Court rules against the McCanns in damages case.
Post by: Mr Gray on February 03, 2017, 11:29:51 PM
Most people are capable of determining what is right what is wrong ~ what is just and what is unjust ~ what is acceptable and what is unacceptable.
Most fair minded people would consider that the treatment to which the parents of a missing child have been subjected reprehensible in the extreme.
I know of no one who would find it acceptable to be accused of being complicit in disposing of their child's dead body despite not a shred of evidence let alone proof to come close to suggesting any veracity to the claim.
Nor can I envisage a situation whereby innocent people have a book written about them specifically to reinforce these claims authored by a police officer who claims he retired specifically to do that.
In the interim the little girl who vanished on the third day of the month was written off as dead on the fourth day of the month by those who were duty bound to be looking out for her best interests and safeguarding her human right to be looked for.
The author of the book who was in charge of that investigation also carved out a new career as a media pundit promulgating his case above hers while doing his utmost to destroy her parent's reputation from every chat show sofa he made access to. All despite the fact Madeleine's parents had been fully investigated and cleared of the accusations with which they have been systematically hounded since their guilt was apparently decided on the fourth day of the month by that self appointed judge and jury.
In Portugal, the right to the presumption of innocence has been superseded by the right to say and write whatever vile untruths pass muster as falling under the umbrella of freedom of speech and honour.
The highest court in Portugal has decreed that is acceptable. In my opinion, that is nothing at all to be proud of or expect the civilised world not to wonder about.
The civilised world is too concerned with the threat Trump represents to give a fig about the McCann's hurt feelings, which is only a good thing.
Title: Re: Supreme Court rules against the McCanns in damages case.
Post by: Alice Purjorick on February 03, 2017, 11:34:04 PM
The editors know what sells papers and any mcCann story does....
I've oft seen this claim,presumably you can provide a cite indicating any spike in sales as opposed to normal sales when there is McCann tittle tattle in them.
Title: Re: Supreme Court rules against the McCanns in damages case.
Post by: Mr Gray on February 04, 2017, 08:59:38 AM
I've oft seen this claim,presumably you can provide a cite indicating any spike in sales as opposed to normal sales when there is McCann tittle tattle in them.
. It's basic common sense Editors know what sells papers McCanns are still 10 yrs later still front page news for the slightest thing That proves as far as the editors are aware that McCann stories sell papers
Title: Re: Supreme Court rules against the McCanns in damages case.
Post by: barrier on February 04, 2017, 09:03:43 AM
. It's basic common sense Editors know what sells papers McCanns are still 10 yrs later still front page news for the slightest thing That proves as far as the editors are aware that McCann stories sell papers
So its an unfounded claim,there is no evidence to suggest any spike in sales,much as one thought. We could try another way,it there evidence to suggest unless a paper carries a McCann story it's sales plummit?
Title: Re: Supreme Court rules against the McCanns in damages case.
Post by: Mr Gray on February 04, 2017, 09:06:01 AM
So its an unfounded claim,there is no evidence to suggest any spike in sales,much as one thought. We could try another way,it there evidence to suggest unless a paper carries a McCann story it's sales plummit?
You are obviously so biased you are not prepared to accept the obvious and whatever's I say won't change your mind
But it's of no importance whether you accept it or not
Title: Re: Supreme Court rules against the McCanns in damages case.
Post by: ferryman on February 04, 2017, 09:15:31 AM
Most people are capable of determining what is right what is wrong ~ what is just and what is unjust ~ what is acceptable and what is unacceptable.
Most fair minded people would consider that the treatment to which the parents of a missing child have been subjected reprehensible in the extreme.
I know of no one who would find it acceptable to be accused of being complicit in disposing of their child's dead body despite not a shred of evidence let alone proof to come close to suggesting any veracity to the claim.
Nor can I envisage a situation whereby innocent people have a book written about them specifically to reinforce these claims authored by a police officer who claims he retired specifically to do that.
In the interim the little girl who vanished on the third day of the month was written off as dead on the fourth day of the month by those who were duty bound to be looking out for her best interests and safeguarding her human right to be looked for.
The author of the book who was in charge of that investigation also carved out a new career as a media pundit promulgating his case above hers while doing his utmost to destroy her parent's reputation from every chat show sofa he made access to. All despite the fact Madeleine's parents had been fully investigated and cleared of the accusations with which they have been systematically hounded since their guilt was apparently decided on the fourth day of the month by that self appointed judge and jury.
In Portugal, the right to the presumption of innocence has been superseded by the right to say and write whatever vile untruths pass muster as falling under the umbrella of freedom of speech and honour.
The highest court in Portugal has decreed that is acceptable. In my opinion, that is nothing at all to be proud of or expect the civilised world not to wonder about.
Quote
Letter to the National Forensics Institute (INML) from Goncalo Amaral
17th August 2007
The present inquiry is in relation to the investigation of the disappearance of Madeleine McCann on 3rd May from P da L.
The English authorities in possession of elements collected from the family home in Leicestershire, which are being examined in an unidentified laboratory, traced the girl's DNA profile, in annex to this document.
As it is necessary to the investigation we request the following:
1. Whether in the tests done by the INML Madeleine's profile was established?
2. In the case of a positive answer to point 1, that it should be determined whether the girl is the daughter of the parents identified ? Gerald Patrick McCann and Kate Healy.
3. Information about whether the profile obtained by the INML corresponds to the profile traced in the English laboratory, on the request of the British authorities.
4. If there are differences between the English and Portuguese profiles that a report should be drawn up for this inquiry.
5. In the follow-up of point 4, we request to be informed whether in the English profile the girl is the daughter of the McCann couple.
6. Other information that might be of use to the investigation.
Signed G. Amaral 09-Processos Vol IX Page 2419
Vol IX Page 2419
Reply from the Forensics Institute (INML) to Goncalo Amaral
22-08-2007
Reply to Queries
- We inform you that none of the samples received by this institute were designated as supposedly belonging to the missing girl and we therefore, cannot reply to this query.
- Samples were studied - hair and a piece of cloth - nuclear DNA profiles only being obtained from 4 samples, which upon comparison with the DNA profiles of Kate and Gerry, could not belong to the girl.
- The samples were then studied using mitochondrial DNA analysis, the same was done for the other samples, giving the results in accordance with our report of 9th July No. 2007/000226 LX-BC.
- As requested in point 5, it was determined that the profile obtained by the British lab could belong to a son/daughter of the McCanns.
- The comparison of the profiles obtained in autossomic STR from Kate and Gerry McCann with the profile obtained was carried out. Signed
. It's basic common sense Editors know what sells papers McCanns are still 10 yrs later still front page news for the slightest thing That proves as far as the editors are aware that McCann stories sell papers
Figures please,produce some evidence,what is the percentage in the spike in sales compared to non McCann news days.
Title: Re: Supreme Court rules against the McCanns in damages case.
Post by: Brietta on February 04, 2017, 09:21:34 AM
I've oft seen this claim,presumably you can provide a cite indicating any spike in sales as opposed to normal sales when there is McCann tittle tattle in them.
Noting the spike in sales and web traffic that typically accompanied stories about the McCanns, many newspapers have published thousands of often contradictory stories. The Express titles were judged to be by far the worst offenders.
Often referring to speculative stories from the Spanish or Portuguese press, the titles have repeatedly used the device of reproducing their allegations in quotation marks. But legal experts say that is no defence in the eyes of the law.
"If you are repeating a rumour, you are liable for that rumour," said Caroline Kean, head of media litigation at media lawyers Wiggin. "There is nothing that has been said about the McCanns that could not have been published in a balanced way. It's when you move into over the top headlines and unbalanced reporting that you go beyond the protection that the libel laws give." https://www.theguardian.com/media/2008/mar/19/dailyexpress.dailystar
Title: Re: Supreme Court rules against the McCanns in damages case.
Post by: Benice on February 04, 2017, 09:23:17 AM
Does anyone know (SIL?) how the Portuguese press have reported this verdict. - especially the Expresso? There appears to have been a change in Editors since the following editorial comment was published regarding the author and his book. It would be interesting to know if there has been a change of opinion since then.
Expresso
(Translated by Astro)
The 'judicial secrecy' and the press' 'lies'
Henrique Monteiro, chief editor 28 July 2008
Who lied in the Maddie case? The answer lies in what is told by former inspector Gonçalo Amaral. All the fantastic and never proved theories that a certain press has spread are in his book. And they remain without any evidence to sustain them.
Gonçalo Amaral must be a man who is full of himself. He was responsible for a calamitous investigation in the 'Maddie case', but according to the balance that he does, everyone is to blame except for him.
According to Gonçalo, the blame lies with the fact that the McCanns' apartment was not preserved, with the British police that did not fully cooperate, with the journalists that stood in the way, with Her Majesty's government that pressured, with the Portuguese government that let itself be pressured, with the prosecutors, with the PJ's directors, with the conspiracy of the powerful and – if he is allowed to continue unloading – it will hit the CIA, the Masonry, Opus Dei, the Trilateral, Bildberg and the Pope, the usual suspects of the conspiracy theories that circulate on the internet.
The same inspector must not be inhibited (not to mention being ashamed), because after the suspicions that befall him due to the conduction of the 'Joana case' (another missing girl, whose mother, who was condemned over her death, accuses the PJ of torturing her) and the disaster of the 'Maddie case', he pretends to be a national hero and the holder of the truth, against everything and against everyone, and he maintains an absurd theory that does not resist a minimally structured analysis.
Amaral probably didn't think about the fact that it does not become him to talk and to write in detail about a process which – despite having been widely abused – is still under judicial secrecy, either. Or that it does not become him to be a judge in his own cause.
But the most interesting about the former inspector's book is that we get to know where the famous 'lies' from the media that everyone talked about, came from. Finally, we can verify that the most unbelievable theories came out of that illuminated brain. And that certain newspapers, lacking a better option, published them without contradicting, without investigating, without logics and without evidence.
But Gonçalo continues to state his 'conviction' that Maddie died in the apartment. He must have inherited from medieval justice, this notion of 'conviction' without evidence; or from Alice, by Carrol, the idea that first the criminal's head is cut off and then the trial is done; or from 'The Foreigner', by Camus, the fixation in the importance of the criminal's "facies" or the fact whether one does or does not cry in front of death.
The lawful state bases itself on evidence, beyond doubt. The notion that innocence prevails over guilt – when there is no evidence to the contrary – is what separates civilization from barbarism.
Unfortunately, there are remains of barbarism among us. Until very recently, it headed the PJ in Portimão. I hope he was the last one.
Title: Re: Supreme Court rules against the McCanns in damages case.
Post by: Eleanor on February 04, 2017, 09:24:00 AM
I had almost forgotten what a horror story it was. The lies were awful and upset even me. God knows what it must have done to The McCanns.
Title: Re: Supreme Court rules against the McCanns in damages case.
Post by: Eleanor on February 04, 2017, 09:27:49 AM
Does anyone know (SIL?) how the Portuguese press have reported this verdict. - especially the Expresso? There appears to have been a change in Editors since the following editorial comment was published regarding the author and his book. It would be interesting to know if there has been a change of opinion since then.
Expresso
(Translated by Astro)
The 'judicial secrecy' and the press' 'lies'
Henrique Monteiro, chief editor 28 July 2008
Who lied in the Maddie case? The answer lies in what is told by former inspector Gonçalo Amaral. All the fantastic and never proved theories that a certain press has spread are in his book. And they remain without any evidence to sustain them.
Gonçalo Amaral must be a man who is full of himself. He was responsible for a calamitous investigation in the 'Maddie case', but according to the balance that he does, everyone is to blame except for him.
According to Gonçalo, the blame lies with the fact that the McCanns' apartment was not preserved, with the British police that did not fully cooperate, with the journalists that stood in the way, with Her Majesty's government that pressured, with the Portuguese government that let itself be pressured, with the prosecutors, with the PJ's directors, with the conspiracy of the powerful and – if he is allowed to continue unloading – it will hit the CIA, the Masonry, Opus Dei, the Trilateral, Bildberg and the Pope, the usual suspects of the conspiracy theories that circulate on the internet.
The same inspector must not be inhibited (not to mention being ashamed), because after the suspicions that befall him due to the conduction of the 'Joana case' (another missing girl, whose mother, who was condemned over her death, accuses the PJ of torturing her) and the disaster of the 'Maddie case', he pretends to be a national hero and the holder of the truth, against everything and against everyone, and he maintains an absurd theory that does not resist a minimally structured analysis.
Amaral probably didn't think about the fact that it does not become him to talk and to write in detail about a process which – despite having been widely abused – is still under judicial secrecy, either. Or that it does not become him to be a judge in his own cause.
But the most interesting about the former inspector's book is that we get to know where the famous 'lies' from the media that everyone talked about, came from. Finally, we can verify that the most unbelievable theories came out of that illuminated brain. And that certain newspapers, lacking a better option, published them without contradicting, without investigating, without logics and without evidence.
But Gonçalo continues to state his 'conviction' that Maddie died in the apartment. He must have inherited from medieval justice, this notion of 'conviction' without evidence; or from Alice, by Carrol, the idea that first the criminal's head is cut off and then the trial is done; or from 'The Foreigner', by Camus, the fixation in the importance of the criminal's "facies" or the fact whether one does or does not cry in front of death.
The lawful state bases itself on evidence, beyond doubt. The notion that innocence prevails over guilt – when there is no evidence to the contrary – is what separates civilization from barbarism.
Unfortunately, there are remains of barbarism among us. Until very recently, it headed the PJ in Portimão. I hope he was the last one.
Oh Dear. Bad one.
Title: Re: Supreme Court rules against the McCanns in damages case.
Post by: stephen25000 on February 04, 2017, 09:43:56 AM
An old article. 2008.
Taken over by events.
Cling on to the starboard bow. Or should I say, Klingon. 8)--))
Title: Re: Supreme Court rules against the McCanns in damages case.
Post by: Alfie on February 04, 2017, 09:44:50 AM
Figures please,produce some evidence,what is the percentage in the spike in sales compared to non McCann news days.
I said I'm not bothered by what you believe If you think I'm going to spend time looking for figures to satisfy you then you must be barmy I've already made my mind up
Title: Re: Supreme Court rules against the McCanns in damages case.
Post by: Eleanor on February 04, 2017, 09:49:23 AM
You have said why you do, but it doesn't mean I believe you.
Is it for truth , justice the Mccann way ? *&*%£
do you in your wildest imagination think I care what you believe or not...get real stephen...LOL
Title: Re: Supreme Court rules against the McCanns in damages case.
Post by: G-Unit on February 04, 2017, 10:21:16 AM
Does it matter what the McCanns, their friends and supporters and the media have to say or have said in the past about Amaral? In the context of this thread it matters not at all. What matters is what the Appeal Court said and the fact that the Supreme Court ratified their judgement.
Title: Re: Supreme Court rules against the McCanns in damages case.
Post by: Mr Gray on February 04, 2017, 10:22:31 AM
Does it matter what the McCanns, their friends and supporters and the media have to say or have said in the past about Amaral? In the context of this thread it matters not at all. What matters is what the Appeal Court said and the fact that the Supreme Court ratified their judgement.
it matters a lot as you will see...although I understand why you want to think it doesnt
Title: Re: Supreme Court rules against the McCanns in damages case.
Post by: stephen25000 on February 04, 2017, 10:23:05 AM
Does it matter what the McCanns, their friends and supporters and the media have to say or have said in the past about Amaral? In the context of this thread it matters not at all. What matters is what the Appeal Court said and the fact that the Supreme Court ratified their judgement.
Exactly.
However, they can't get over it.
They never will. It sticks in their craw.
Title: Re: Supreme Court rules against the McCanns in damages case.
Post by: Eleanor on February 04, 2017, 10:38:23 AM
it matters a lot as you will see...although I understand why you want to think it doesnt
The decisions made by the Portuguese courts will stand. The costs of the McCann's action plus 50% will be paid by them. Amaral's assets will be returned to him, probably with interest paid by the McCanns. Anyone wishing to write a book about the case in Portugal can be confident that they are unlikely to be sued whatever theory they propose.
If they are as intelligent as some believe they are the McCanns will have learned that believing you're right isn't sufficient in a court case, where you have to provide proof. Isobel Duarte will have learned that when an Appeal is judged on points of law and not on 'the facts' it's because the judgement they are examining was also made using points of law and not 'the facts'.
Title: Re: Supreme Court rules against the McCanns in damages case.
Post by: Eleanor on February 04, 2017, 10:50:42 AM
Does it matter what the McCanns, their friends and supporters and the media have to say or have said in the past about Amaral? In the context of this thread it matters not at all. What matters is what the Appeal Court said and the fact that the Supreme Court ratified their judgement.
Right On. Now wait for the kick back. Everyone is entitled to an opinion, according to Portuguese Law. This includes The McCanns. So Amaral can hardly blame them if they use this Judgement to defend themselves.
Title: Re: Supreme Court rules against the McCanns in damages case.
Post by: faithlilly on February 04, 2017, 10:52:08 AM
Right On. Now wait for the kick back. Everyone is entitled to an opinion, according to Portuguese Law. This includes The McCanns. So Amaral can hardly blame them if they use this Judgement to defend themselves.
The McCanns have held the field for years.
There is nothing they can say, which is anything new, other than their mantra.
Title: Re: Supreme Court rules against the McCanns in damages case.
Post by: G-Unit on February 04, 2017, 11:06:07 AM
Right On. Now wait for the kick back. Everyone is entitled to an opinion, according to Portuguese Law. This includes The McCanns. So Amaral can hardly blame them if they use this Judgement to defend themselves.
I don't know the man, but if it was me they could say what they liked. He has been vindicated by the Judiciary of his country in which he never lost faith. It will certainly be interesting to watch if they try to turn this judgement round so it favours them.
Title: Re: Supreme Court rules against the McCanns in damages case.
Post by: jassi on February 04, 2017, 11:08:33 AM
They have a spin master par excellence to assist, so they'll probably give it a go
Title: Re: Supreme Court rules against the McCanns in damages case.
Post by: Mr Gray on February 04, 2017, 11:11:40 AM
The decisions made by the Portuguese courts will stand. The costs of the McCann's action plus 50% will be paid by them. Amaral's assets will be returned to him, probably with interest paid by the McCanns. Anyone wishing to write a book about the case in Portugal can be confident that they are unlikely to be sued whatever theory they propose.
If they are as intelligent as some believe they are the McCanns will have learned that believing you're right isn't sufficient in a court case, where you have to provide proof. Isobel Duarte will have learned that when an Appeal is judged on points of law and not on 'the facts' it's because the judgement they are examining was also made using points of law and not 'the facts'. She, however, has the comfort of her fees to sweeten her disappointment.
the judgement has nothing to do with the law....it is a judgement by the supreme court on what is most important...amarals freedom of expression or the mccanns reputation. ....they decided it was amaral...a purely arbitrary decision. There is a law of libel in portugal......it is just the judges decission on how the law is interpreted
Title: Re: Supreme Court rules against the McCanns in damages case.
Post by: jassi on February 04, 2017, 11:24:02 AM
the judgement has nothing to do with the law....it is a judgement by the supreme court on what is most important...amarals freedom of expression or the mccanns reputation. ....they decided it was amaral...a purely arbitrary decision. There is a law of libel in portugal......it is just the judges decission on how the law is interpreted
But not just any judge, but those of the Supreme Court and as such the judgement will stand for ever.
Tough t*t that you don't like.
Title: Re: Supreme Court rules against the McCanns in damages case.
Post by: stephen25000 on February 04, 2017, 11:32:22 AM
I don't know the man, but if it was me they could say what they liked. He has been vindicated by the Judiciary of his country in which he never lost faith. It will certainly be interesting to watch if they try to turn this judgement round so it favours them.
It has been decided that Amaral may say what he pleases. This is hardly vindication of his theory. Sadly, some people will think that it is.
Title: Re: Supreme Court rules against the McCanns in damages case.
Post by: Mr Gray on February 04, 2017, 11:35:02 AM
It has been decided that Amaral may say what he pleases. This is hardly vindication of his theory. Sadly, some people will think that it is.
There may never be vindication of his theory. The case may join the ranks of the unresolved, which include Ann Noblet (The body in the freezer) and Diane Jones (husband questioned under caution twice).
Title: Re: Supreme Court rules against the McCanns in damages case.
Post by: Eleanor on February 04, 2017, 11:52:37 AM
There may never be vindication of his theory. The case may join the ranks of the unresolved, which include Ann Noblet (The body in the freezer) and Diane Jones (husband questioned under caution twice).
Please let's stick to The Topic, in so far as it is possible.
Title: Re: Supreme Court rules against the McCanns in damages case.
Post by: G-Unit on February 04, 2017, 12:44:09 PM
It has been decided that Amaral may say what he pleases. This is hardly vindication of his theory. Sadly, some people will think that it is.
It has not been decided that Amaral can say what he pleases at all, unless you have a cite to that effect. It has been judged that in this particular case the first judge's interpretation of the law was incorrect.
Title: Re: Supreme Court rules against the McCanns in damages case.
Post by: Eleanor on February 04, 2017, 01:03:03 PM
It has not been decided that Amaral can say what he pleases at all, unless you have a cite to that effect. It has been judged that in this particular case the first judge's interpretation of the law was incorrect.
Well now, I believe that the first judgement was perfectly correct. Or do you think she was a fool?
Title: Re: Supreme Court rules against the McCanns in damages case.
Post by: xtina on February 04, 2017, 01:11:33 PM
Im quite glad to say I told you so...500K will seem like chicken feed compared to what the McCannns can now make...and this is only the beginning....they have moved on
Oh lol...........can you honestly see the mccs sitting there discussing the book.....
because that is all whoever speak to them will want to know .....
even personally giving the book more publicity ....
they won't do it .is that where the chicken feed comes in ....
Title: Re: Supreme Court rules against the McCanns in damages case.
Post by: jassi on February 04, 2017, 01:27:29 PM
Then you can't possibly be upset by the verdict - except you clearly are.
No, I am not upset. how could I be? This isn't personal for me. I can even see how this decision was arrived at, if Portugal is so determined to hang on to ancient history. But Portugal will have to move into The Twenty First Century eventually.
Title: Re: Supreme Court rules against the McCanns in damages case.
Post by: Eleanor on February 04, 2017, 01:40:08 PM
You can believe what you like . The appeal judges disagreed and they're the ones that count.
It may be the one that counts at this point but I think the verdict will give the Mccanns story a lot more value than the money that is lost. The McCanns will move on and they have an opprtunity to make a fortune for their fund. t' like a lot of things in life until you have walked in darkness you cannot see the light ...the Mccanns will come back stronger and they could well have alot to say about amaral and the portuguese justice system which will make very uncomfortable raeding for some
Title: Re: Supreme Court rules against the McCanns in damages case.
Post by: xtina on February 04, 2017, 01:53:36 PM
It may be the one that counts at this point but I think the verdict will give the Mccanns story a lot more value than the money that is lost. The McCanns will move on and they have an opprtunity to make a fortune for their fund. t' like a lot of things in life until you have walked in darkness you cannot see the light ...the Mccanns will come back stronger and they could well have alot to say about amaral and the portuguese justice system which will make very uncomfortable raeding for some
you hope davel .................
doesn't mean to say its true .................
works both ways ......G A could have a lot more to say about them .....
after all he was the officer on the case .....
he was privy to info ....you are not
Title: Re: Supreme Court rules against the McCanns in damages case.
Post by: Eleanor on February 04, 2017, 01:54:44 PM
I thought she did a really good job. No bullshit, and perfectly fair to both sides. She didn't give The McCanns an inch that they weren't entitled to.
But she is of the new generation and hasn't been tainted by past fascism. I don't suppose that she will worry about it. Her day will come.
that is exactly how I read the situation. The younger judge more in tune with the present day vs the older judges rooted in the past ...portugal may come to regret this decision
Title: Re: Supreme Court rules against the McCanns in damages case.
Post by: Eleanor on February 04, 2017, 01:57:43 PM
you wouldn't be saying that if it was the other way round .........
so don.t take it to personal ......
It is all an opinion in the end. Even for The Courts of Portugal. The young ones said Aye and the old ones said Nay. That should tell you something. Things will change.
Title: Re: Supreme Court rules against the McCanns in damages case.
Post by: Mr Gray on February 04, 2017, 02:10:23 PM
It is all an opinion in the end. Even for The Courts of Portugal. The young ones said Aye and the old ones said Nay. That should tell you something. Things will change.
Is it known the ages of the said Judges then?
Title: Re: Supreme Court rules against the McCanns in damages case.
Post by: Eleanor on February 04, 2017, 02:14:24 PM
It may be the one that counts at this point but I think the verdict will give the Mccanns story a lot more value than the money that is lost. The McCanns will move on and they have an opprtunity to make a fortune for their fund. t' like a lot of things in life until you have walked in darkness you cannot see the light ...the Mccanns will come back stronger and they could well have alot to say about amaral and the portuguese justice system which will make very uncomfortable raeding for some
Yes. I am ignoring this at the moment. I am more interested in their bizarre attitude to The Law. But it has vaguely occurred to me that The McCanns could now make minced meat of Amaral.
Title: Re: Supreme Court rules against the McCanns in damages case.
Post by: stephen25000 on February 04, 2017, 02:15:44 PM
What changed? Do you think a news headline such as "The Met knows what happened to Madeleine McCann" or "Madeleine's parents arrested" would attract very little interest these days? Upon what do you base your opinion?
Title: Re: Supreme Court rules against the McCanns in damages case.
Post by: xtina on February 04, 2017, 02:20:43 PM
It is all an opinion in the end. Even for The Courts of Portugal. The young ones said Aye and the old ones said Nay. That should tell you something. Things will change.
for courts it is points of law ........not IMO
Title: Re: Supreme Court rules against the McCanns in damages case.
Post by: Eleanor on February 04, 2017, 02:24:26 PM
It may be the one that counts at this point but I think the verdict will give the Mccanns story a lot more value than the money that is lost. The McCanns will move on and they have an opprtunity to make a fortune for their fund. t' like a lot of things in life until you have walked in darkness you cannot see the light ...the Mccanns will come back stronger and they could well have alot to say about amaral and the portuguese justice system which will make very uncomfortable raeding for some
they are not going to want to .promote ..or discuss ....
.what they have tried to ban for 8 years.............
Title: Re: Supreme Court rules against the McCanns in damages case.
Post by: xtina on February 04, 2017, 02:26:45 PM
It may be the one that counts at this point but I think the verdict will give the Mccanns story a lot more value than the money that is lost. The McCanns will move on and they have an opprtunity to make a fortune for their fund. t' like a lot of things in life until you have walked in darkness you cannot see the light ...the Mccanns will come back stronger and they could well have alot to say about amaral and the portuguese justice system which will make very uncomfortable raeding for some
Oh Davel, you do say the funniest of things @)(++(*
Title: Re: Supreme Court rules against the McCanns in damages case.
Post by: G-Unit on February 04, 2017, 02:37:48 PM
Well now, I believe that the first judgement was perfectly correct. Or do you think she was a fool?
Is it the verdict you found correct or the judgement? The judge rested her whole judgement upon Anaral's former profession and her opinion of the duties that imposed upon him. The Appeal judges rejected her opinion of the duties imposed upon a retired police officer and the Supreme Court agreed with them.
Given the lack of evidence to support the allegations of the claimants the judge used jurisprudence to make a case against Amaral. Given the demolition of her attempt by the judges in the higher courts that was probably a mistake.
Title: Re: Supreme Court rules against the McCanns in damages case.
Post by: xtina on February 04, 2017, 02:44:30 PM
then I dont have to respect this decosion and I dont have to abide by it because it doesnt affect me.....as far as I am concerned it is gone...they have to deal with it and I'm sure they will come back stronger
I don't recall anyone asking you to.
Title: Re: Supreme Court rules against the McCanns in damages case.
Post by: Mr Gray on February 04, 2017, 02:55:10 PM
Can anyone prove that Amaral sat down to write a book with the deliberate intention of deceiving people? Can anyone even explain how he hoped to get away with that when the book described the investigative process in which many other officers were involved? Or were they all complicit too? Has a conspiracy been uncovered? @)(++(*
Title: Re: Supreme Court rules against the McCanns in damages case.
Post by: carlymichelle on February 04, 2017, 03:34:39 PM
Can anyone prove that Amaral sat down to write a book with the deliberate intention of deceiving people? Can anyone even explain how he hoped to get away with that when the book described the investigative process in which many other officers were involved? Or were they all complicit too? Has a conspiracy been uncovered? @)(++(*
i have always found their thinking weird they blame anyone but the mcanns dont they
Title: Re: Supreme Court rules against the McCanns in damages case.
Post by: Eleanor on February 04, 2017, 03:37:42 PM
Somedebody is on the Delete Button. It wasnae me. But probably best that I was deprived from answering.
I have always had great hopes for this Forum, and still do. This is almost certainly the best that any of you are ever going to get.
I do know that I was most definitely not the first choice as a Moderator for some of you. But I am. And at the time none of you wanted to take it on. I can only think that I had a brain storm. I must have been mad. I have never treated any of you unfairly. In fact, when push came to shove, I have always given the benefit of doubt to sceptics because this is the sort of person that I am.
Back to the Topic. The Court decision has left the likes of me a mazed. But none of it means that Madeleine is dead.
Title: Re: Supreme Court rules against the McCanns in damages case.
Post by: Eleanor on February 04, 2017, 03:42:08 PM
Somedebody is on the Delete Button. It wasnae me. But probably best that I was deprived from answering.
I have always had great hopes for this Forum, and still do. This is almost certainly the best that any of you are ever going to get.
I do know that I was most definitely not the first choice as a Moderator for some of you. But I am. And at the time none of you wanted to take it on. I can only think that I had a brain storm. I must have been mad. I have never treated any of you unfairly. In fact, when push came to shove, I have always given the benefit of doubt to sceptics because this is the sort of person that I am.
don't know if you are fishing for compliments ...
but all i can say is ...don't goad posters .if you don't expect to be goaded back please ....
Back to the Topic. The Court decision has left the likes of me a mazed. But none of it means that Madeleine is dead.
Title: Re: Supreme Court rules against the McCanns in damages case.
Post by: jassi on February 04, 2017, 03:44:11 PM
At the end of the trial we see Sr Amaral is not "toast" as was predicted he would be.
I have a very good memory John tried this last week During the first trial based on how things were going I said amaral would lose Second trial I said amaral may well win Then said nothing about the Supreme Court I thought amaral would win as I think at least one if not two of the judges here had already been involved in overturning the ban
So I've been very accurate in my forecast
You are taking the thread off topic
Title: Re: Supreme Court rules against the McCanns in damages case.
Post by: Mr Gray on February 04, 2017, 03:58:26 PM
Can anyone prove that Amaral sat down to write a book with the deliberate intention of deceiving people? Can anyone even explain how he hoped to get away with that when the book described the investigative process in which many other officers were involved? Or were they all complicit too? Has a conspiracy been uncovered? @)(++(*
And yet oddly enough that is exactly what you believe Kate has done, with the cooperation of her group of seven friends.
Title: Re: Supreme Court rules against the McCanns in damages case.
Post by: jassi on February 04, 2017, 04:16:22 PM
why should you expect me to do anything about it...thats a rather silly thing to say
You were the one raising the issue so I naturally thought you were planning to do something about. Those of us who genuinely don't care don't normally raise the subject.
Title: Re: Supreme Court rules against the McCanns in damages case.
Post by: Mr Gray on February 04, 2017, 04:18:53 PM
You were the one raising the issue so I naturally thought you were planning to do something about. Those of us who genuinely don't care don't normally raise the subject.
well you naturally thought wrong. I have opinions on lots of issues around the world but enough sense to know I cannot do anything about it....this is just one of those issues
Title: Re: Supreme Court rules against the McCanns in damages case.
Post by: Eleanor on February 04, 2017, 04:20:35 PM
Just to clarify, my delete button is red hot again, and my username is filling up the moderation log at the moment.
It would be so much easier all round if points were made in a civil manner.
Keep it coming. Keep on deleting. I am having a crisis of conscience at the moment, and finding a bit hard, perhaps because I can see how everyone feels, so tis mortal hard sometimes.
But, if I am seen on The Board then it always me who gets the blame. Although I must say that I don't real care.
Title: Re: Supreme Court rules against the McCanns in damages case.
Post by: G-Unit on February 04, 2017, 04:27:00 PM
And yet oddly enough that is exactly what you believe Kate has done, with the cooperation of her group of seven friends.
Is it? The mind reader is back. @)(++(*
Title: Re: Supreme Court rules against the McCanns in damages case.
Post by: jassi on February 04, 2017, 04:28:31 PM
Perhaps management could arrange the system so that mods names were only in blue when on mod duties. Then us mere mortals would have a better idea of who to blame for deletions
Title: Re: Supreme Court rules against the McCanns in damages case.
Post by: Eleanor on February 04, 2017, 04:41:50 PM
Perhaps management could arrange the system so that mods names were only in blue when on mod duties. Then us mere mortals would have a better idea of who to blame for deletions
Mod names are only in the blue. But sometimes we get Reports, and then we don't need to be there to delete. So you are never going to know who actually done it.
Title: Re: Supreme Court rules against the McCanns in damages case.
Post by: Alfie on February 04, 2017, 04:49:59 PM
Can anyone prove that Amaral sat down to write a book with the deliberate intention of deceiving people? Can anyone even explain how he hoped to get away with that when the book described the investigative process in which many other officers were involved? Or were they all complicit too? Has a conspiracy been uncovered? @)(++(*
IMO he deliberately led his readers to believe they were reading a first hand account from the policeman who had been face to face with the McCanns. interviewing them and observing them - when in reality it was only a secondhand account because he had never met or spoken to Kate McCann in his life - and had only once briefly met Gerry when he wrote his book
It's pretty obvious that an account straight from the horses mouth would be of far more interest to potential buyers than a book that was a compilation of the accounts and impression of others.
There was nothing in his book to give his readers even the tiniest hint that that was the truth of the matter - in fact mainly by the copious use of the word 'WE' - the opposite impression is given throughout - and even when asked directly in interviews not once did he ever admit the truth. Why try to hide that fact if there was nothing wrong with it.
If I had bought his book and then found out after reading it that he'd never personally met or spoken to the McCanns - I would certainly have felt that I had been deceived. Wouldn't anyone?
Title: Re: Supreme Court rules against the McCanns in damages case.
Post by: ShiningInLuz on February 04, 2017, 05:25:08 PM
Perhaps management could arrange the system so that mods names were only in blue when on mod duties. Then us mere mortals would have a better idea of who to blame for deletions
Blame? Surely not! We don't do blame culture here, jassi.
Not that it matters, but since the SC decision went through, I reckon I have spent 97% (approximately) of my time on here deleting tripe and trying to salvage something from that which remains.
The forum generally jogs along nice and gently. But come a Portuguese court decision, it is precisely the opposite.
Title: Re: Supreme Court rules against the McCanns in damages case.
Post by: Mr Gray on February 04, 2017, 05:43:12 PM
Blame? Surely not! We don't do blame culture here, jassi.
Not that it matters, but since the SC decision went through, I reckon I have spent 97% (approximately) of my time on here deleting tripe and trying to salvage something from that which remains.
The forum generally jogs along nice and gently. But come a Portuguese court decision, it is precisely the opposite.
well lets call a truce....no sniping posts...no ad homs....fine by me
Title: Re: Supreme Court rules against the McCanns in damages case.
Post by: Mr Gray on February 04, 2017, 09:09:28 PM
the bidding war is being reported in the telegraph now...cant wait to hear what the mcCanns have to say...some are going to be very very upset
Title: Re: Supreme Court rules against the McCanns in damages case.
Post by: Alice Purjorick on February 04, 2017, 09:29:51 PM
and far far more will....these bidders will be paying such vast sums because they know what will increase their audiences....your language reveals your anger
Title: Re: Supreme Court rules against the McCanns in damages case.
Post by: Mr Gray on February 04, 2017, 09:34:43 PM
It's not the first time such a thing has been reported; denied by all involved last time. It makes you wonder who makes these stories up.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/7210340.stm
things have changed massively...just wait and you will see
Title: Re: Supreme Court rules against the McCanns in damages case.
Post by: stephen25000 on February 04, 2017, 09:34:47 PM
Taking money for the 10 th anniversary of their daughter's disappearance, when the investigation has gone nowhere, and they failed in a major court case, will only result in one inevitable conclusion.
Title: Re: Supreme Court rules against the McCanns in damages case.
Post by: Mr Gray on February 04, 2017, 09:36:36 PM
Taking money for the 10 th anniversary of their daughter's disappearance, when the investigation has gone nowhere, and they failed in a major court case, will only result in one inevitable conclusion.
any money taken as yet has gone to the fund...what conclusion would taht be...I dont expect you to be able to articulate an answer
Title: Re: Supreme Court rules against the McCanns in damages case.
Post by: Mr Gray on February 04, 2017, 09:42:56 PM
I think the sceptics here just cannot cope with the fact that the mccanns are going to come back stronger after this set back
Title: Re: Supreme Court rules against the McCanns in damages case.
Post by: stephen25000 on February 04, 2017, 09:53:27 PM
Some supporters seem to be living in their own post truth world.
I know its very hard for you to accept the reality of the situation...the verdict in portugal has caused the mccanns value re interviews to absolutely skyrocket...and what they have to tell could be absolute dynamite
Title: Re: Supreme Court rules against the McCanns in damages case.
Post by: slartibartfast on February 04, 2017, 10:10:42 PM
I know its very hard for you to accept the reality of the situation...the verdict in portugal has caused the mccanns value re interviews to absolutely skyrocket...and what they have to tell could be absolute dynamite
QED
Title: Re: Supreme Court rules against the McCanns in damages case.
Post by: stephen25000 on February 04, 2017, 10:13:53 PM
I know its very hard for you to accept the reality of the situation...the verdict in portugal has caused the mccanns value re interviews to absolutely skyrocket...and what they have to tell could be absolute dynamite
We have heard the Mccann's story repeated again and again.
Title: Re: Supreme Court rules against the McCanns in damages case.
Post by: carlymichelle on February 04, 2017, 10:16:44 PM
A small group of people who didn't understand the evidence made his appeal possible Not the UK public The McCanns can make a fortune but you and others don't want to accept that because you hate them so much Your hatred is unnatural
what mine ......and hundreds of thousand others.not hatred though [don't like what they did ....and are still doing ]
now comonnnnnnnnnn........a small group of people raised ...that amount ......including ...police officers.
Title: Re: Supreme Court rules against the McCanns in damages case.
Post by: John on February 05, 2017, 11:47:18 AM
Some free rein has been afforded on this thread but despite this dozens of posts have been removed. The nonsense stops now otherwise this thread will be closed. TY
Title: Re: Supreme Court rules against the McCanns in damages case.
Post by: xtina on February 05, 2017, 11:59:13 AM
you seem to have another fixation ...this forum is nothing to do with trump... I wont be popular but I quite like him... I like man who calls a fool a fool
what and agrees with torture ......now i thought you was against all that '''
so it only applies to G A and your hatred for him by the sounds of it ............
Title: Re: Supreme Court rules against the McCanns in damages case.
Post by: carlymichelle on February 05, 2017, 12:01:43 PM
"On the night she was taken police received two separate potential sightings from members of the public -- however one was fully ruled out as being a holidaymaker with his daughter". So what about the other one chief?
As usual the Sun has their facts wrong. Tannerman was never 'fully ruled out' as asserted by the tabloid rag.
Title: Re: Supreme Court rules against the McCanns in damages case.
Post by: xtina on February 05, 2017, 12:12:33 PM
So you don't think that acquiring a criminal conviction, committing adultery, swindling his own brother, abusing his power whilst a policemen by breaking the law himself and having his name mentioned by Amnesty International under the Torture section - has tarnished his name in any way whatsoever? Not even a tad?
There's no answer to that.
An excellent point. These actions were of his own doing.
Title: Re: Supreme Court rules against the McCanns in damages case.
Post by: Alice Purjorick on February 05, 2017, 12:24:12 PM
As usual the Sun has their facts wrong. Tannerman was never 'fully ruled out' as asserted by the tabloid rag.
Only in the same sense that a lawyer will only identify a corpse as "that is the person introduced to me as......." I know that and you know that but The Sun going off piste? They will find a story and if they can't they will make one up. It may be Sr Amaral's turn to be championed by The Sun in their quest for a story that will sell copy. After all it is a bit "man bites dog" at present isn't it? (please forgive the use of the "D" word ?{)(**)
Title: Re: Supreme Court rules against the McCanns in damages case.
Post by: barrier on February 05, 2017, 12:56:25 PM
you are misunderstanding the headlines....the headline does not refer to him as a top cop as you claim
typical sceptic mistake
I think you may be mistaken as to what the Sun means when they refer to him as Top Cop,its all in print to see. They no longer refer to him as disgraced cop.
Title: Re: Supreme Court rules against the McCanns in damages case.
Post by: ferryman on February 05, 2017, 01:04:08 PM
Good to know that the Portuguese press, also, retains a proper perspective on the nonsense of this ruling, and of where the true injustice lies:
Quote
MIGUEL SOUSA TAVARES
Justice to the Portuguese
Gonçalo Amaral, the inspector of the PJ who was investigating the 'Maddie Case', finished the investigation without any conclusions and decided to write a book to defend the thesis that had not been proven during the investigation: the parents would have murdered their daughter. The book (which, symptomatically, opens with a circumstantial lie) sustains from the beginning the thesis of the brilliant investigator, inspired by the 'Caso Joana Cipriano' - with the enormous difference that here it was not possible to torture the mother to obtain from her a confession Which, shamefully, the court then accepted as evidence. Little did he care: Mr. Amaral turned his professional fiasco, his thesis never demonstrated, in fact official and of that made a business opportunity. Thus accused of killing their daughter, the McCanns brought against Gonçalo Amaral an action of defamation - which they won in the first instance, lost in the Relation and ended up losing definitively in the Supreme. It is freedom of the press, counselors say: the freedom of, without some evidence and lightly accusing someone of having killed their own daughter.
Title: Re: Supreme Court rules against the McCanns in damages case.
Post by: Mr Gray on February 05, 2017, 01:05:24 PM
I think you may be mistaken as to what the Sun means when they refer to him as Top Cop,its all in print to see.
you said "a top cop" you are wrong...the sun says "The top cop" . There is a massive diference...he was the top cop...head of investigation but he was not a top cop
Title: Re: Supreme Court rules against the McCanns in damages case.
Post by: pathfinder73 on February 05, 2017, 01:07:29 PM
I think he was a top cop with the most drug busts in Portugal history and criminals fearing him.
Title: Re: Supreme Court rules against the McCanns in damages case.
Post by: barrier on February 05, 2017, 01:10:05 PM
you said "a top cop" you are wrong...the sun says "The top cop" . There is a massive diference...he was the top cop...head of investigation but he was not a top cop
Top Cop there is no the,you've just made that up to support a failing argument.
Quote
FRESH MISERY FOR MCCANNS Top cop who accused Madeleine McCann’s parents of covering up her death is planning to write ANOTHER book after winning libel appeal
Title: Re: Supreme Court rules against the McCanns in damages case.
Post by: Mr Gray on February 05, 2017, 01:13:15 PM
Top Cop there is no the,you've just made that up to support a failing argument.
quote...
THE TOP cop who accused Madeleine McCann’s parents of covering up her death is planning to write another book about her disappearance after winning a libel appeal.
I have made nothing up its just that you are sloppy in your reading of the article.....
Title: Re: Supreme Court rules against the McCanns in damages case.
Post by: xtina on February 05, 2017, 01:25:11 PM
you said "a top cop" you are wrong...the sun says "The top cop" . There is a massive diference...he was the top cop...head of investigation but he was not a top cop
in some peoples eyes he is .............he fought the mccs .and won
Title: Re: Supreme Court rules against the McCanns in damages case.
Post by: barrier on February 05, 2017, 01:26:41 PM
you are misunderstanding the headlines....the headline does not refer to him as a top cop as you claim
typical sceptic mistake
Headlines.
Quote
FRESH MISERY FOR MCCANNS Top cop who accused Madeleine McCann’s parents of covering up her death is planning to write ANOTHER book after winning libel appeal
Title: Re: Supreme Court rules against the McCanns in damages case.
Post by: Mr Gray on February 05, 2017, 01:29:52 PM
in some peoples eyes he is .............he fought the mccs .and won
it isnt over yet. The Mccanns went down the libel route and lost...there is a lot the general public do not know about amaral...criminal conviction...accusations by his wife of drunk driving with his daughter and lots more ghe has trashed their reputation...I think his will now be trashed
Title: Re: Supreme Court rules against the McCanns in damages case.
Post by: ferryman on February 05, 2017, 01:31:28 PM
The UK police should have advised, but not interfered, and they interfered.
You do remember what the incident was about, do you?
An anonymous email was sent to Prince Charles containing information that a disgruntled former employee of the Ocean Club was involved in Madeleine's abduction.
As was proper procedure His Royal Highness's office forwarded that information to the police.
Who in turn with the protocol of Portugal being the lead investigators forwarded the information to the Portuguese authorities for their information.
It will be noted that the information did not comply with the Portuguese chief investigator's theory and caused him a measure of annoyance.
Quote In the evening, while driving, I receive an unidentified phone call, the last straw…A journalist asks me if I want to comment on the subject of the email. Whether due to the difficult day, the raging storm or the fact of driving through rain…I lose my cool. I reply, irritably, without thinking, that the message is of no interest and that it would be better for the English police to occupy themselves with the Portuguese investigation. Goncalo Amaral
So who exactly caused the damage to reputation which apparently led to Amaral being kicked off the case if that is an example of the volatility of the man?
However, Portuguese law is the law in Portugal. It doesn't stop others stepping back in amazement at its vagaries.
Title: Re: Supreme Court rules against the McCanns in damages case.
Post by: xtina on February 05, 2017, 01:55:53 PM
it isnt over yet. The Mccanns went down the libel route and lost...there is a lot the general public do not know about amaral...criminal conviction...accusations by his wife of drunk driving with his daughter and lots more ghe has trashed their reputation...I think his will now be trashed
well don't want to offend you .......but you only think......
we will have to wait and see ......who comes out on top .........
at the moment its ........GA
have a nice holiday by the way ...........
Title: Re: Supreme Court rules against the McCanns in damages case.
Post by: Alfie on February 05, 2017, 02:31:21 PM
LOL. Are you trying to claim that the Sun's use of the word 'Top' in the sub headline refers to his being a most excellent cop? LOL.
Title: Re: Supreme Court rules against the McCanns in damages case.
Post by: jassi on February 05, 2017, 02:39:06 PM
Quite. They used the same term for Redwood & both he and Amara were mid-ranking officers. Nothing top about either of them.
Title: Re: Supreme Court rules against the McCanns in damages case.
Post by: stephen25000 on February 05, 2017, 02:49:23 PM
But a source close to the exasperated couple said: 'I think the fight is finally over. They want to concentrate on finding Madeleine and don't think they have the time or energy to lodge yet another appeal.' '
It's you who is wrong You claimed they referred to amaral as a top cop They didnt
No matter how many times you deny it the headlines say different,its in black and white,take it up with the Sun editorial staff,if you don't agree with it.
Once more the Headlines of the quoted piece.
Quote
FRESH MISERY FOR MCCANNS Top cop who accused Madeleine McCann’s parents of covering up her death is planning to write ANOTHER book after winning libel appeal
But a source close to the exasperated couple said: 'I think the fight is finally over. They want to concentrate on finding Madeleine and don't think they have the time or energy to lodge yet another appeal.' '
Maybe they will Maybe they won't We will know a lot more in the next few weeks This is far from over The court case loss has opened a new chapter and it will be very interesting
Title: Re: Supreme Court rules against the McCanns in damages case.
Post by: Mr Gray on February 05, 2017, 03:09:55 PM
Can anyone access the whole article and post a decent translation of it? I realise none of the PT Amaral fan club will be interested in doing so, so perhaps we will never be able to read an alternative PT view of the "top" cop.
Title: Re: Supreme Court rules against the McCanns in damages case.
Post by: Mr Gray on February 05, 2017, 04:07:55 PM
Can anyone access the whole article and post a decent translation of it? I realise none of the PT Amaral fan club will be interested in doing so, so perhaps we will never be able to read an alternative PT view of the "top" cop.
#Nalalo Amaral, the inspector of the PJ who was investigating the 'Maddie Case', concluded the investigation without any conclusions and decided to write a book to defend the thesis that he had failed to prove during the investigation: the parents would have murdered their daughter. The book (which, symptomatically, opens with a circumstantial lie) sustains from the beginning the thesis of the brilliant investigator, inspired by the 'Caso Joana Cipriano' - with the enormous difference that here it was not possible to torture the mother to obtain from her a confession Which, shamefully, the court then accepted as evidence. Little did he care: Mr. Amaral turned his professional fiasco, his thesis never demonstrated, in fact official and of that made a business opportunity. Thus accused of killing their daughter, the McCanns brought against Gonçalo Amaral an action of defamation - which they won in the first instance, lost in the Relation and ended up losing definitively in the Supreme. It is freedom of the press, counselors say: the freedom of, without some evidence and lightly accusing someone of having killed their own daughter.
#thats just the first part
and note a respected portugues journalist confirming that cipriano was tortured into giving a confession
Title: Re: Supreme Court rules against the McCanns in damages case.
Post by: Brietta on February 05, 2017, 04:23:36 PM
Can anyone access the whole article and post a decent translation of it? I realise none of the PT Amaral fan club will be interested in doing so, so perhaps we will never be able to read an alternative PT view of the "top" cop.
I am of the opinion that Portugal does not consist solely of the hostility to which we have become accustomed ... I think what we are exposed to is a microcosm.
Title: Re: Supreme Court rules against the McCanns in damages case.
Post by: G-Unit on February 05, 2017, 04:48:24 PM
Justice is Innocent Until Proven Guilty. It is really that simple.
I replied to this but it was deleted and I was given a 'libel' warning. I have been advised that my post was not libellous, so here it is again.
''There's nothing wrong with that concept until people start insisting that someone is innocent when they have no way of knowing if it's true or not. That's just the same as people insisting that someone is guilty without knowing if it's true or not.
What I see on this forum are people going to extraordinary lengths to convince others that the McCanns are innocent. I don't see people going to extraordinary lengths to convince others that they're guilty. Instead I see people pointing to evidence which casts doubt on certain aspects of the McCann's story.''
Title: Re: Supreme Court rules against the McCanns in damages case.
Post by: Alfie on February 05, 2017, 04:52:40 PM
I replied to this but it was deleted and I was given a 'libel' warning. I have been advised that my post was not libellous, so here it is again.
''There's nothing wrong with that concept until people start insisting that someone is innocent when they have no way of knowing if it's true or not. That's just the same as people insisting that someone is guilty without knowing if it's true or not.
What I see on this forum are people going to extraordinary lengths to convince others that the McCanns are innocent. I don't see people going to extraordinary lengths to convince others that they're guilty. Instead I see people pointing to evidence which casts doubt on certain aspects of the McCann's story.''
Only because on this forum you're not allowed to. That's the only reason.
Title: Re: Supreme Court rules against the McCanns in damages case.
Post by: Mr Gray on February 05, 2017, 04:55:45 PM
I replied to this but it was deleted and I was given a 'libel' warning. I have been advised that my post was not libellous, so here it is again.
''There's nothing wrong with that concept until people start insisting that someone is innocent when they have no way of knowing if it's true or not. That's just the same as people insisting that someone is guilty without knowing if it's true or not.
What I see on this forum are people going to extraordinary lengths to convince others that the McCanns are innocent. I don't see people going to extraordinary lengths to convince others that they're guilty. Instead I see people pointing to evidence which casts doubt on certain aspects of the McCann's story.''
You see what you want to see I see people going to extraordinary lengths to try and prove the McCanns are lying Spending days and weeks studying the files is extraordinary to me Particularly as SY and the PJ have already decided there is no evidence in the accuse the McCanns of any crime
Title: Re: Supreme Court rules against the McCanns in damages case.
Post by: Erngath on February 05, 2017, 04:58:00 PM
#Nalalo Amaral, the inspector of the PJ who was investigating the 'Maddie Case', concluded the investigation without any conclusions and decided to write a book to defend the thesis that he had failed to prove during the investigation: the parents would have murdered their daughter. The book (which, symptomatically, opens with a circumstantial lie) sustains from the beginning the thesis of the brilliant investigator, inspired by the 'Caso Joana Cipriano' - with the enormous difference that here it was not possible to torture the mother to obtain from her a confession Which, shamefully, the court then accepted as evidence. Little did he care: Mr. Amaral turned his professional fiasco, his thesis never demonstrated, in fact official and of that made a business opportunity. Thus accused of killing their daughter, the McCanns brought against Gonçalo Amaral an action of defamation - which they won in the first instance, lost in the Relation and ended up losing definitively in the Supreme. It is freedom of the press, counselors say: the freedom of, without some evidence and lightly accusing someone of having killed their own daughter.
#thats just the first part
and note a respected portugues journalist confirming that cipriano was tortured into giving a confession
Indeed. Not a glowing article about him. One wonders how many other journalists share these opinions.
Title: Re: Supreme Court rules against the McCanns in damages case.
Post by: barrier on February 05, 2017, 05:03:45 PM
What do you think "top" refers to in the headline and article then?
Title: Re: Supreme Court rules against the McCanns in damages case.
Post by: Alice Purjorick on February 05, 2017, 05:09:46 PM
None of it really matters. The Supreme Court upheld the decision of the Appeal Court which ruled in Sr Amaral's favour and not in the plaintiffs favour. Game over.
In the next game who knows?
Title: Re: Supreme Court rules against the McCanns in damages case.
Post by: Mr Gray on February 05, 2017, 05:18:47 PM
so wh do you thing the Sun means by Top Cop....as it refers to him as the top cop it simply means the cop leading the investigation....and the sun did not refer to him as a top cop as you claim
Title: Re: Supreme Court rules against the McCanns in damages case.
Post by: jassi on February 05, 2017, 05:27:34 PM
Where's the need to define anything? Post 810 merely state what the Sun were calling him in the head lines and following story
You, wrongly disagreed that that was what Sun said.
Title: Re: Supreme Court rules against the McCanns in damages case.
Post by: Erngath on February 05, 2017, 05:33:55 PM
He is called " brilliant investigator" in the article by the Portugues journalist. Was this a tongue in cheek description?
Title: Re: Supreme Court rules against the McCanns in damages case.
Post by: Mr Gray on February 05, 2017, 06:29:39 PM
I wonder just how much these journalist actually know about the details of the case....I think it would be worth a letter to the sun with all the details of amarals transgressions with cites....would make an interesting article
Title: Re: Supreme Court rules against the McCanns in damages case.
Post by: jassi on February 05, 2017, 06:38:24 PM
Well had it been my child the ex-cop had been tasked with finding and he not only failed, but also made me the chief suspect and then spent the rest of his life trying to persuade people he was on the right track all along(even though he patently wasn't) then yes, I'd have been a bit effin' miffed. You of course wouldn't have been remotely bothered.
Title: Re: Supreme Court rules against the McCanns in damages case.
Post by: stephen25000 on February 05, 2017, 06:52:14 PM
There appears to be a lot of sour grapes on here.
The legal proceedings are done and dusted, and nothing said on this forum will change that.
Title: Re: Supreme Court rules against the McCanns in damages case.
Post by: jassi on February 05, 2017, 06:53:53 PM
Well had it been my child the ex-cop had been tasked with finding and he not only failed, but also made me the chief suspect and then spent the rest of his life trying to persuade people he was on the right track all along(even though he patently wasn't) then yes, I'd have been a bit effin' miffed. You of course wouldn't have been remotely bothered.
Why should anyone not personally involved be in the slightest bothered?
Title: Re: Supreme Court rules against the McCanns in damages case.
Post by: Alfie on February 05, 2017, 06:56:53 PM
Why should anyone not personally involved be in the slightest bothered?
I was talking about putting yourself into another's position, something you are clearly not able to do. Never mind.
Title: Re: Supreme Court rules against the McCanns in damages case.
Post by: Alfie on February 05, 2017, 06:59:53 PM
Why should ANYONE care about what they perceive to be a miscarriage of justice, if it doesn't affect you personally? Jassi and others on here don't understand that concept at all. It makes you wonder why we even have a Miscarriage of Justice Forum when surely other people's misfortunes and unjust treatment are nothing to do with us and therefore supposedly of no interest.
Title: Re: Supreme Court rules against the McCanns in damages case.
Post by: jassi on February 05, 2017, 07:00:06 PM
Why should anyone not personally involved be in the slightest bothered?
I suppose it is the same as not being personally involved in the terrorist attacks, the war in Syria, starving children in other countries but having the empathy to feel bothered.
Title: Re: Supreme Court rules against the McCanns in damages case.
Post by: jassi on February 05, 2017, 07:01:33 PM
Why should ANYONE care about what they perceive to be a miscarriage of justice, if it doesn't affect you personally? Jassi and others on here don't understand that concept at all. It makes you wonder why we even have a Miscarriage of Justice Forum when surely other people's misfortunes and unjust treatment are nothing to do with us and therefore supposedly of no interest.
It does indeed, but as it exists, one might as well use it 8)--))
Title: Re: Supreme Court rules against the McCanns in damages case.
Post by: stephen25000 on February 05, 2017, 07:04:39 PM
I suppose it is the same as not being personally involved in the terrorist attacks, the war in Syria, starving children in other countries but having the empathy to feel bothered.
How can you equate your addition to Jassi's post, compared to the mccann case.
The McCann's bear responsibility for how this case started.
Madeleine suffered the consequences.
However, comparing this case and empathy to those people killed or maimed in war , is beyond the pale.
For example, Trump is an act of stupidity gave the go-ahead for a raid, in which 30 civilians were killed, including women and children, together with a Navy Seal.
Title: Re: Supreme Court rules against the McCanns in damages case.
Post by: Erngath on February 05, 2017, 07:06:50 PM
I believe it was reported that it would be at the end of the week just gone,didn't happen apparently .
I think that was when the party's lawyers would be officially notified by the Court. When the Supreme Court rejected the McCann's appeal against the overturning of the first book ban no judgement was released. The Appeal Court judgement stands as it did in that case.
Title: Re: Supreme Court rules against the McCanns in damages case.
Post by: G-Unit on February 06, 2017, 07:37:58 AM
When the Appeal Court overturned the first ban on Amaral's book he made an interesting point;
What is the direct consequence of this decision [book ban] in the claim for damages [filed by the McCanns]?
It has a very strong impact because the arguments used by the applicants for requesting the main action are the same. We strongly believe that we are going to win this battle between truth and falsehood. http://www.gerrymccannsblogs.co.uk/Nigel/id344.htm [Direct Speech: A short interview with Gonçalo Amaral, 20 October 2010]
As the arguments were the same in the main action as they were in the book banning attempt in September 2009 the Appeal Court would have been contradicting itself if it had found for the McCanns the second time those arguments came before it. Perhaps the applicants should have realised, as Amaral did, that those arguments were not going to stand up.
Title: Re: Supreme Court rules against the McCanns in damages case.
Post by: Robittybob1 on February 06, 2017, 10:24:57 AM
Is that right?
Title: Re: Supreme Court rules against the McCanns in damages case.
Post by: Alice Purjorick on February 06, 2017, 10:45:40 AM
It was discussed on this forum at the time with Angelo, John and few others saying pretty much what G-Unit has highlighted. The usual suspects said "ah no you silly persons can't you spot the subtle differences? Amaral will get his comuppance". So subtle were the differences the Supreme Court couldn't spot them either, apparently !
Title: Re: Supreme Court rules against the McCanns in damages case.
Post by: John on February 06, 2017, 10:47:56 AM
When the Appeal Court overturned the first ban on Amaral's book he made an interesting point;
What is the direct consequence of this decision [book ban] in the claim for damages [filed by the McCanns]?
It has a very strong impact because the arguments used by the applicants for requesting the main action are the same. We strongly believe that we are going to win this battle between truth and falsehood. http://www.gerrymccannsblogs.co.uk/Nigel/id344.htm [Direct Speech: A short interview with Gonçalo Amaral, 20 October 2010]
As the arguments were the same in the main action as they were in the book banning attempt in September 2009 the Appeal Court would have been contradicting itself if it had found for the McCanns the second time those arguments came before it. Perhaps the applicants should have realised, as Amaral did, that those arguments were not going to stand up.
There is a saying which goes, once bitten, twice shy, thrice a fool!
Title: Re: Supreme Court rules against the McCanns in damages case.
Post by: G-Unit on February 06, 2017, 11:07:36 AM
When the Appeal Court overturned the first ban on the book they looked at these rights;
1. damage to the reservation of the applicants' private and family life; 2. damage to their right to image and a good name; 3. damage to their right to the guarantees of the penal process, namely the right to a fair investigation and the right to freedom and safety.
They ruled that;
The contents of the book does not offend any of the applicants' fundamental rights.
The exercise of its writing and publication is included in the constitutional rights that are secured to everyone by the European Convention on Human Rights and by the Portuguese Republic's Constitution, namely in its articles 37º and 38º.
Costs to be paid by the appealed parties [the McCann couple and their three children].
Lisbon and Appeals Court, 14.10.2010 http://www.gerrymccannsblogs.co.uk/court_docs.htm#appeal
Title: Re: Supreme Court rules against the McCanns in damages case.
Post by: barrier on February 06, 2017, 11:11:19 AM
When the Appeal Court overturned the first ban on the book they looked at these rights;
1. damage to the reservation of the applicants' private and family life; 2. damage to their right to image and a good name; 3. damage to their right to the guarantees of the penal process, namely the right to a fair investigation and the right to freedom and safety.
They ruled that;
The contents of the book does not offend any of the applicants' fundamental rights.
The exercise of its writing and publication is included in the constitutional rights that are secured to everyone by the European Convention on Human Rights and by the Portuguese Republic's Constitution, namely in its articles 37º and 38º.
Costs to be paid by the appealed parties [the McCann couple and their three children].
Lisbon and Appeals Court, 14.10.2010 http://www.gerrymccannsblogs.co.uk/court_docs.htm#appeal
The high lighted part,is Madeleine still subject to a ward of court,if so are the courts responsible for her cost's,anyone?
Title: Re: Supreme Court rules against the McCanns in damages case.
Post by: G-Unit on February 06, 2017, 11:37:53 AM
No, because the Court didn't bring the action, her parents did.
Thanks.
Title: Re: Supreme Court rules against the McCanns in damages case.
Post by: jassi on February 06, 2017, 11:42:59 AM
This is something that has puzzled me. As Madeleine is a Ward of Court, how can the MCanns take legal action on her behalf? Is that not now the responsibility of the Family Court? Perhaps someone with a legal brain will explain.
Title: Re: Supreme Court rules against the McCanns in damages case.
Post by: faithlilly on February 06, 2017, 12:37:38 PM
Well had it been my child the ex-cop had been tasked with finding and he not only failed, but also made me the chief suspect and then spent the rest of his life trying to persuade people he was on the right track all along(even though he patently wasn't) then yes, I'd have been a bit effin' miffed. You of course wouldn't have been remotely bothered.
Ask yourself this. Would they have begun litigation if their own home and my had been at stake?
Title: Re: Supreme Court rules against the McCanns in damages case.
Post by: Alfie on February 06, 2017, 12:41:58 PM
Amaral lost his home and most of his income so why should the McCanns be any different? Actions have consequences so their lawyers would have had a responsibility to explain all this before committing to legal action.
The first move will be a restraint order to freeze all assets and prevent anything from being sold or transferred.
Title: Re: Supreme Court rules against the McCanns in damages case.
Post by: Mr Gray on February 06, 2017, 01:38:45 PM
Amaral lost his home and most of his income so why should the McCanns be any different? Actions have consequences so their lawyers would have had a responsibility to explain all this before committing to legal action.
The first move will be a restraint order to freeze all assets and prevent anything from being sold or transferred.
That is assuming there are any assets
Title: Re: Supreme Court rules against the McCanns in damages case.
Post by: Brietta on February 06, 2017, 01:52:17 PM
This is something that has puzzled me. As Madeleine is a Ward of Court, how can the MCanns take legal action on her behalf? Is that not now the responsibility of the Family Court? Perhaps someone with a legal brain will explain.
Correct me if I am wrong. Wasn't one of the court delays due to Amaral's then lawyer checking out that very point?
Title: Re: Supreme Court rules against the McCanns in damages case.
Post by: slartibartfast on February 06, 2017, 01:55:09 PM
This is something that has puzzled me. As Madeleine is a Ward of Court, how can the MCanns take legal action on her behalf? Is that not now the responsibility of the Family Court? Perhaps someone with a legal brain will explain.
If I remember correctly, the Judge removed Maddie from the list of plaintiffs?
Title: Re: Supreme Court rules against the McCanns in damages case.
Post by: ferryman on February 06, 2017, 01:57:34 PM
Amaral lost his home and most of his income so why should the McCanns be any different? Actions have consequences so their lawyers would have had a responsibility to explain all this before committing to legal action.
The first move will be a restraint order to freeze all assets and prevent anything from being sold or transferred.
How does a Portuguese restraint order work in the UK then?
Title: Re: Supreme Court rules against the McCanns in damages case.
Post by: Alice Purjorick on February 06, 2017, 02:07:30 PM
This is something that has puzzled me. As Madeleine is a Ward of Court, how can the MCanns take legal action on her behalf? Is that not now the responsibility of the Family Court? Perhaps someone with a legal brain will explain.
As I recall there was a hooha because Sr Amaral's avogado picked up on this and wanted proof the English courts were content that appropriate permissions had been granted before the writ was filed in Portugal. Apparently all was cool.
Title: Re: Supreme Court rules against the McCanns in damages case.
Post by: Mr Gray on February 06, 2017, 02:08:36 PM
How does a Portuguese restraint order work in the UK then?
A restraint order is made against the person regardless of where they reside. Any breach becomes a contempt of court and is liable to criminal proceedings.
Whether this happens is entirely at Amaral's discretion now that he holds all the cards.
Title: Re: Supreme Court rules against the McCanns in damages case.
Post by: jassi on February 06, 2017, 02:15:03 PM
There will need to be sound reasons for disposing of substantial assets in any way shape or form post filing the writ.
Any sleight of hand to protect assets might have been done long ago. I suppose they could freeze the Professor's salary and any other sources of income.
Title: Re: Supreme Court rules against the McCanns in damages case.
Post by: Angelo222 on February 06, 2017, 02:16:00 PM
Any sleight of hand to protect assets might have been done long ago. I suppose they could freeze the Professor's salary and any other sources of income.
Possibly just in the nick of too late as the idea of losing seems not to have been on the radar judging by the incandescance. I doubt playing a shell game with assets not long before embarking on a flaky damages claim would be smiled upon by the OR man were he to be involved.
Title: Re: Supreme Court rules against the McCanns in damages case.
Post by: Mr Gray on February 06, 2017, 02:29:42 PM
Any sleight of hand to protect assets might have been done long ago. I suppose they could freeze the Professor's salary and any other sources of income.
Not if they declared bankruptcy There are too many unknowns at the moment to reach any real conclusions
In fact they couldn't freeze is salary in any situation
Title: Re: Supreme Court rules against the McCanns in damages case.
Post by: G-Unit on February 06, 2017, 02:37:59 PM
That's correct, the original judgement was on behalf of the parents and the twins.
Do you mean the judgement of the lower court? The claims of all three children were dismissed, but they were included in the order yo pay costs;
IV. fully dismiss the requests, made in the same action, by the claimants MADELEINE MCCANN, SEAN MICHAEL MCCANN and AMELIE EVE MCCANN against the defendant GONCALO AMARAL and of those claims acquit the defendant.
X. Condemn the claimants KATE MARIE HEALY MCCANN, GERALD PATRICK MCCANN, MADELEINE BETH MCCANN, SEAN MICHAEL MCCANN e AMELIE EVE MCCANN and the defendant GONCALO AMARAL to pay the expenses of the main action in the proportion of 58.30% for the former and 41.70% for the second, in accordance with paragraph 1 of the article 527 of the Civil Procedure Code. Reply #10 on: May 10, 2015, 09:15:06 PM » http://miscarriageofjustice.co/index.php?topic=6307.0
Title: Re: Supreme Court rules against the McCanns in damages case.
Post by: faithlilly on February 06, 2017, 03:00:32 PM
Is it not? I thought the McCanns were going to be bankrupted by Amaral which puts potentially puts their home at stake, yah?
Title: Re: Supreme Court rules against the McCanns in damages case.
Post by: jassi on February 06, 2017, 03:15:55 PM
In the first instance they are required to pay court cost and legal fees resulting from their recent unsuccessful foray into litigation.
Nothing that Amaral has so far initiated places them at risk of bankruptcy
Title: Re: Supreme Court rules against the McCanns in damages case.
Post by: G-Unit on February 06, 2017, 03:17:54 PM
All the Portuguese Court has to do in the case of non-payment is to register the debt by the appropriate method with the High Court in England. It is then collected as if it was a domestic debt. http://www.loble.co.uk/enforcement_of_foreign_judgments.html
Title: Re: Supreme Court rules against the McCanns in damages case.
Post by: Alfie on February 06, 2017, 03:22:15 PM
All the Portuguese Court has to do in the case of non-payment is to register the debt by the appropriate method with the High Court in England. It is then collected as if it was a domestic debt. http://www.loble.co.uk/enforcement_of_foreign_judgments.html
The question concerned the enforcement of Angelo's so-called "restraining" order to freeze all their assets.
Title: Re: Supreme Court rules against the McCanns in damages case.
Post by: Mr Gray on February 06, 2017, 04:04:04 PM
A restraint order is made against the person regardless of where they reside. Any breach becomes a contempt of court and is liable to criminal proceedings.
Whether this happens is entirely at Amaral's discretion now that he holds all the cards.
It will depend on the ability to pay There are a lot of posts here from posters thinking they understand the situation I suspect it's much more complex The UK government seem to find it impossible to recover motoring fines from foreign drivers so I don't think it's quite as simple as some think
Title: Re: Supreme Court rules against the McCanns in damages case.
Post by: G-Unit on February 06, 2017, 04:05:16 PM
Not if they declared bankruptcy There are too many unknowns at the moment to reach any real conclusions
In fact they couldn't freeze is salary in any situation
You seem obsessed with bankruptcy. Your house can certainly be sold under certain conditions. Anyone contemplating it as a solution to their debt problems needs to think carefully. https://www.citizensadvice.org.uk/debt-and-money/debt-solutions/bankruptcy-2/is-bankruptcy-right-for-you/
If the debt was passed to the English High Court I assume they could make an attachment of earnings order just like any court if required.
Title: Re: Supreme Court rules against the McCanns in damages case.
Post by: Mr Gray on February 06, 2017, 04:08:56 PM
You seem obsessed with bankruptcy. Your house can certainly be sold under certain conditions. Anyone contemplating it as a solution to their debt problems needs to think carefully. https://www.citizensadvice.org.uk/debt-and-money/debt-solutions/bankruptcy-2/is-bankruptcy-right-for-you/
If the debt was passed to the English High Court I assume they could make an attachment of earnings order just like any court if required.
Of course your house may be sold but not necessarily Bankruptcy may be an option
Bankruptcy would also prevent amaral from suing for damages
Title: Re: Supreme Court rules against the McCanns in damages case.
Post by: jassi on February 06, 2017, 04:10:34 PM
Yes, like paying up ?{)(**
Title: Re: Supreme Court rules against the McCanns in damages case.
Post by: Eleanor on February 06, 2017, 04:10:42 PM
The McCanns don't appear to have any assets, and the house will be very close to negative equity, even less if it is put up for auction.
Title: Re: Supreme Court rules against the McCanns in damages case.
Post by: Mr Gray on February 06, 2017, 04:13:58 PM
The house would be valued on a forced sale value If there is little or no equity they can keep it
Putting it on the open market with virtually no extra value isn't a good idea either. That could take years, and the house bandits are forever looking for a bargain.
Perhaps someone on this forum would like to make a large offer.
Title: Re: Supreme Court rules against the McCanns in damages case.
Post by: G-Unit on February 06, 2017, 04:47:09 PM
Is it not? I thought the McCanns were going to be bankrupted by Amaral which puts potentially puts their home at stake, yah?
I would have thought Sr Amaral is the least of their worries at the moment. If there are insufficient funds to satisfy the court they will be debtors to the court. That is a totally different game. Then of course there is Dra Duarte to be appeased but quite where everyone will appear in the pecking order is to be seen. The Court will be on top of the heap though and they hold the power.
Title: Re: Supreme Court rules against the McCanns in damages case.
Post by: jassi on February 06, 2017, 06:06:05 PM
I would have thought Sr Amaral is the least of their worries at the moment. If there are insufficient funds to satisfy the court they will be debtors to the court. That is a totally different game. Then of course there is Dra Duarte to be appeased but quite where everyone will appear in the pecking order is to be seen. The Court will be on top of the heap though and they hold the power.
Too right, though in their mind he will remain the cause of all their ills for many years.
Title: Re: Supreme Court rules against the McCanns in damages case.
Post by: Mr Gray on February 06, 2017, 06:11:30 PM
I would have thought Sr Amaral is the least of their worries at the moment. If there are insufficient funds to satisfy the court they will be debtors to the court. That is a totally different game. Then of course there is Dra Duarte to be appeased but quite where everyone will appear in the pecking order is to be seen. The Court will be on top of the heap though and they hold the power.
owing money to court is not a different game.....if they dont have it thats it
Title: Re: Supreme Court rules against the McCanns in damages case.
Post by: Alice Purjorick on February 06, 2017, 06:28:44 PM
owing money to court is not a different game.....if they dont have it thats it
It is. Once the courts man is in he has the power to "Leave No Stone Unturned", as one might say, in his quest for assets. Your argument is overly simplistic.
By the way this argument has been going this pm it would appear that the supporters will see it as a major victory if their heros are made homeless and penniless as long as they don't pay out to anything Portuguese. La la la
Title: Re: Supreme Court rules against the McCanns in damages case.
Post by: Mr Gray on February 06, 2017, 06:30:42 PM
It is. Once the courts man is in he has the power to "Leave No Stone Unturned", as one might say, in his quest for assets. Your argument is overly simplistic.
By the way this argument has been going this pm it would appear that the supporters will see it as a major victory if their heros are made homeless and penniless as long as they don't pay out to anything Portuguese. La la la
the court man has no more power than any other debtor apart from being at the top of the list
Title: Re: Supreme Court rules against the McCanns in damages case.
Post by: G-Unit on February 06, 2017, 06:32:20 PM
the court man has no more power than any other debtor apart from being at the top of the list
If it is an enforced bankruptcy he has ultimate power.......... and the court can enforce the bankruptcy if their bill is not paid and see G-Units earlier post about transfer of debt.
Title: Re: Supreme Court rules against the McCanns in damages case.
Post by: Mr Gray on February 06, 2017, 06:40:26 PM
If it is an enforced bankruptcy he has ultimate power.......... and the court can enforce the bankruptcy if their bill is not paid and see G-Units earlier post about transfer of debt.
any debtor can enfotce bankruptcy
Title: Re: Supreme Court rules against the McCanns in damages case.
Post by: faithlilly on February 06, 2017, 06:40:38 PM
I cant see any way that the mccanns will have gooods removed from their house....the idea is rather silly
I told you the way. The fund declines to pay their debts. They don't have enough to pay. The Portuguese courts pass the debts to the English High Court to collect. The High Court Enforcement Officers arrive at their house and they can't pay. Goods are removed. Simple.
I don't think it will happen because I think the fund will cough up, but it is certainly not silly, it's how debts are pursued and collected by the High Court.
Title: Re: Supreme Court rules against the McCanns in damages case.
Post by: Erngath on February 06, 2017, 08:41:19 PM
I told you the way. The fund declines to pay their debts. They don't have enough to pay. The Portuguese courts pass the debts to the English High Court to collect. The High Court Enforcement Officers arrive at their house and they can't pay. Goods are removed. Simple.
I don't think it will happen because I think the fund will cough up, but it is certainly not silly, it's how debts are pursued and collected by the High Court.
All goods, beds, cooking implements etc.? Seems Draconian. As I said in an earlier post this cannot happen here in Scotland
Title: Re: Supreme Court rules against the McCanns in damages case.
Post by: G-Unit on February 06, 2017, 08:43:18 PM
No they are not poor. So what goods can be seized. Here only cars if they are fully owned but not beds or furniture or clothes or cooking facilities or cooking implements. I'm not too sure of what can be seized here as the practice seems to be so rare.
Title: Re: Supreme Court rules against the McCanns in damages case.
Post by: Mr Gray on February 06, 2017, 08:52:03 PM
I told you the way. The fund declines to pay their debts. They don't have enough to pay. The Portuguese courts pass the debts to the English High Court to collect. The High Court Enforcement Officers arrive at their house and they can't pay. Goods are removed. Simple.
I don't think it will happen because I think the fund will cough up, but it is certainly not silly, it's how debts are pursued and collected by the High Court.
Thats not how it works.......if you cant pay a debt you reach an arrangement with your creditors for an amount you can afford to make monthly.
the court will not authorise enforcement unless the debtors have avoided co operation
Title: Re: Supreme Court rules against the McCanns in damages case.
Post by: G-Unit on February 06, 2017, 08:59:00 PM
All goods, beds, cooking implements etc.? Seems Draconian. As I said in an earlier post this cannot happen here in Scotland
The High Court Enforcement Officers in England and Scotland can take goods. They can take such things as cars, TV's, golf clubs, computers etc. They cannot take basic household items and furniture which are necessities.
Title: Re: Supreme Court rules against the McCanns in damages case.
Post by: Mr Gray on February 06, 2017, 09:02:38 PM
The High Court Enforcement Officers in England and can take goods. They can take such things as cars, TV's, golf clubs, computers etc. They cannot take basic household items and furniture which are necessities.
They cannot take anything wlthout authorisation from the court
Title: Re: Supreme Court rules against the McCanns in damages case.
Post by: G-Unit on February 06, 2017, 09:09:59 PM
They cannot take anything wlthout authorisation from the court
I never said they could. Obviously there are procedures. Usually they seize the goods but don't remove them because that stimulates the debtor to find some money and/or to make a payment agreement.
Title: Re: Supreme Court rules against the McCanns in damages case.
Post by: Mr Gray on February 06, 2017, 09:14:15 PM
I never said they could. Obviously there are procedures. Usually they seize the goods but don't remove them because that stimulates the debtor to find some money and/or to make a payment agreement.
the court will only make an order if the debtors have not co operated...they will only be expected to pay what they can afford...no more...as amonthly payment. The debtor has a chance to make a payment agreement first
Title: Re: Supreme Court rules against the McCanns in damages case.
Post by: Eleanor on February 06, 2017, 09:17:19 PM
Posted by PORTUGALPRESS on February 06, 2017 Tabloid scramble cranks up pressure on “second Maddie book”
No sooner had former PJ coordinator Gonçalo Amaral seen his right to freedom of expression upheld by the Supreme Court than UK tabloids have been scrambling themselves into a froth of indignation about a “second Maddie book” in the wings, threatening to pile yet more agony on the pain caused by his first: “Madeleine: The Truth of the Lie”.
The fact that Amaral revealed he was writing a second book almost a year ago appears to have passed unnoticed (click here).
Tabloids have been full of the “McCann warning” that lawyers employed by renowned legal firm Carter Ruck “will be watching” in case Amaral publishes anything about the mystery in UK.
While the Sunday Express claims Amaral is looking for a “new publisher”, the Daily Mail describes him as “jubilant” and “finishing off the final chapter of his newly-penned book while taking a break in Switzerland”.
The paper also claims that “Truth of the Lie” was “never translated into English for publication in the UK because it would have breached strict libel laws”.
These are all more than likely to be reports that need to be taken with large quantities of salt.
Carter Ruck’s lawyers may well be watching, but the reality is that the finding of the appeal court last year - and dismissal of the subsequent McCann appeal by the Supreme Court last month - means that “Madeleine: The Truth of the Lie” is not considered defamatory after painstaking and rigorous legal challenges.
Indeed the 76-page decision taken by Supreme Court judges shows just how thoroughly the McCann's various claims were studied, and why they were thrown-out as not being sufficient to see Amaral fined vast quantities of money.
What the flurry of stories is more likely to be about is the fact that no-one really knows what Amaral proposes to do next.
He has refused requests for interviews, he has neither confirmed nor denied whether he will be counter-suing the McCanns for damages (as he intimated last year that he would), and he has not revealed when his next book will be ready.
It is the kind of suspense that British media outlets do not enjoy.
Meantime, bystanders have been predicting a new Madeleine sighting, or indeed sightings “any day now” and “as soon as the weather improves” a new visit to Portugal by officers working on Operation Grange - the Metropolitan Police investigation into Madeleine’s disappearance said to have cost the British taxpayer around €15 million and which has been working on a “last throw of the dice” for the last three months.
natasha.donn@algarveresident.com
Categories: Top Stories
Title: Re: Supreme Court rules against the McCanns in damages case.
Post by: Eleanor on February 06, 2017, 09:37:46 PM
Posted by PORTUGALPRESS on February 06, 2017 Tabloid scramble cranks up pressure on “second Maddie book”
No sooner had former PJ coordinator Gonçalo Amaral seen his right to freedom of expression upheld by the Supreme Court than UK tabloids have been scrambling themselves into a froth of indignation about a “second Maddie book” in the wings, threatening to pile yet more agony on the pain caused by his first: “Madeleine: The Truth of the Lie”.
The fact that Amaral revealed he was writing a second book almost a year ago appears to have passed unnoticed (click here).
Tabloids have been full of the “McCann warning” that lawyers employed by renowned legal firm Carter Ruck “will be watching” in case Amaral publishes anything about the mystery in UK.
While the Sunday Express claims Amaral is looking for a “new publisher”, the Daily Mail describes him as “jubilant” and “finishing off the final chapter of his newly-penned book while taking a break in Switzerland”.
The paper also claims that “Truth of the Lie” was “never translated into English for publication in the UK because it would have breached strict libel laws”.
These are all more than likely to be reports that need to be taken with large quantities of salt.
Carter Ruck’s lawyers may well be watching, but the reality is that the finding of the appeal court last year - and dismissal of the subsequent McCann appeal by the Supreme Court last month - means that “Madeleine: The Truth of the Lie” is not considered defamatory after painstaking and rigorous legal challenges.
Indeed the 76-page decision taken by Supreme Court judges shows just how thoroughly the McCann's various claims were studied, and why they were thrown-out as not being sufficient to see Amaral fined vast quantities of money.
What the flurry of stories is more likely to be about is the fact that no-one really knows what Amaral proposes to do next.
He has refused requests for interviews, he has neither confirmed nor denied whether he will be counter-suing the McCanns for damages (as he intimated last year that he would), and he has not revealed when his next book will be ready.
It is the kind of suspense that British media outlets do not enjoy.
Meantime, bystanders have been predicting a new Madeleine sighting, or indeed sightings “any day now” and “as soon as the weather improves” a new visit to Portugal by officers working on Operation Grange - the Metropolitan Police investigation into Madeleine’s disappearance said to have cost the British taxpayer around €15 million and which has been working on a “last throw of the dice” for the last three months.
natasha.donn@algarveresident.com
Categories: Top Stories
what absolute rubbish...its almost unbeleiveable
Title: Re: Supreme Court rules against the McCanns in damages case.
Post by: stephen25000 on February 06, 2017, 09:40:41 PM
Posted by PORTUGALPRESS on February 06, 2017 Tabloid scramble cranks up pressure on “second Maddie book”
No sooner had former PJ coordinator Gonçalo Amaral seen his right to freedom of expression upheld by the Supreme Court than UK tabloids have been scrambling themselves into a froth of indignation about a “second Maddie book” in the wings, threatening to pile yet more agony on the pain caused by his first: “Madeleine: The Truth of the Lie”.
The fact that Amaral revealed he was writing a second book almost a year ago appears to have passed unnoticed (click here).
Tabloids have been full of the “McCann warning” that lawyers employed by renowned legal firm Carter Ruck “will be watching” in case Amaral publishes anything about the mystery in UK.
While the Sunday Express claims Amaral is looking for a “new publisher”, the Daily Mail describes him as “jubilant” and “finishing off the final chapter of his newly-penned book while taking a break in Switzerland”.
The paper also claims that “Truth of the Lie” was “never translated into English for publication in the UK because it would have breached strict libel laws”.
These are all more than likely to be reports that need to be taken with large quantities of salt.
Carter Ruck’s lawyers may well be watching, but the reality is that the finding of the appeal court last year - and dismissal of the subsequent McCann appeal by the Supreme Court last month - means that “Madeleine: The Truth of the Lie” is not considered defamatory after painstaking and rigorous legal challenges.
Indeed the 76-page decision taken by Supreme Court judges shows just how thoroughly the McCann's various claims were studied, and why they were thrown-out as not being sufficient to see Amaral fined vast quantities of money.
What the flurry of stories is more likely to be about is the fact that no-one really knows what Amaral proposes to do next.
He has refused requests for interviews, he has neither confirmed nor denied whether he will be counter-suing the McCanns for damages (as he intimated last year that he would), and he has not revealed when his next book will be ready.
It is the kind of suspense that British media outlets do not enjoy.
Meantime, bystanders have been predicting a new Madeleine sighting, or indeed sightings “any day now” and “as soon as the weather improves” a new visit to Portugal by officers working on Operation Grange - the Metropolitan Police investigation into Madeleine’s disappearance said to have cost the British taxpayer around €15 million and which has been working on a “last throw of the dice” for the last three months.
natasha.donn@algarveresident.com
Categories: Top Stories
i think anything Natasha Donn says should be taken with a large pinch of salt
Title: Re: Supreme Court rules against the McCanns in damages case.
Post by: Mr Gray on February 06, 2017, 10:04:09 PM
No Erngath, nothing like that. Expensive wrist watches or valuable ornaments perhaps, but not ordinary items of furniture or kitchen equipment.
Hopefully that will not happen.
Title: Re: Supreme Court rules against the McCanns in damages case.
Post by: Mr Gray on February 06, 2017, 10:10:25 PM
the enforcement officers only act when the debtors have not co operated or have failed to keep up payment under an agreemnet...they are a last resort by the court
Title: Re: Supreme Court rules against the McCanns in damages case.
Post by: Mr Gray on February 06, 2017, 10:12:09 PM
The court costs wil be sizeable ...iro £50 K....and posters here think the court are going to pop round and take gerry's golf clubs....what rubbish...typical sceptic logic
Title: Re: Supreme Court rules against the McCanns in damages case.
Post by: slartibartfast on February 06, 2017, 10:25:06 PM
The court costs wil be sizeable ...iro £50 K....and posters here think the court are going to pop round and take gerry's golf clubs....what rubbish...typical sceptic logic
They can sell houses, cars, IT equipment, Audio Visual Equipment, jewellery, art, etc. Etc.
Title: Re: Supreme Court rules against the McCanns in damages case.
Post by: Mr Gray on February 06, 2017, 10:26:49 PM
the people who have the bailiffs come are those who have not opened the letters....ignored the offers of help...all they have to do is say i can only afford 20 pounds a month and if thats all they can afford the court will accept it
Title: Re: Supreme Court rules against the McCanns in damages case.
Post by: Mr Gray on February 06, 2017, 10:28:34 PM
the people who have the bailiffs come are those who have not opened the letters....ignored the offers of help...all they have to do is say i can only afford 20 pounds a month and if thats all they can afford the court will accept it
If it is acceptable to those owed.
Title: Re: Supreme Court rules against the McCanns in damages case.
Post by: Alfie on February 06, 2017, 10:29:47 PM
the people who have the bailiffs come are those who have not opened the letters....ignored the offers of help...all they have to do is say i can only afford 20 pounds a month and if thats all they can afford the court will accept it
It's what Tony Bennett did isn't it?
Title: Re: Supreme Court rules against the McCanns in damages case.
Post by: Mr Gray on February 06, 2017, 10:31:45 PM
Title: Re: Supreme Court rules against the McCanns in damages case.
Post by: Alice Purjorick on February 06, 2017, 10:51:48 PM
"Disadvantages of going bankrupt
To apply to go bankrupt you’ll need to pay a £680 fee. Other disadvantages of going bankrupt include:
if your income is high enough, you’ll be asked to make payments towards your debts for 3 years it will be more difficult to take out credit while you're bankrupt and your credit rating will be affected for 6 years if you own your home, it might have to be sold (but you may be able to apply to your local authority for re-housing) some of your possessions might have to be sold, for example, your car and any luxury items you own if you are, or are about to be, the right age to get your pension savings, these might be taken some professions don’t let people who have been made bankrupt carry on working if you own a business it might be closed down and the assets sold off going bankrupt can affect your immigration status your bankruptcy will be published publicly (although if you’re worried you or your family maybe the victims of violence, you can ask that your details aren’t given out)"
And of course the whole piggin' works is controlled by The Insolvency Service which administers compulsory company liquidations and personal bankruptcies and deals with misconduct through investigation of companies and enforcement. The man in charge is the Official Receiver of whom you need know but two things 1 He is an officer of the court and 2 He is a licensed mugger whose job is to liquidate as many assets as possible and re-distribute them as quickly as possible among the creditors according to their standing on the totem pole. He cannot sell the tools of your trade. These are all things that may happen that is not to say they will but the name McCann is not a Kevlar Jacket a device by which one can walk on water or an exemption certificate from the law, whatever some may like to believe. In short they are as likely to cop a live one as anybody else.
Title: Re: Supreme Court rules against the McCanns in damages case.
Post by: slartibartfast on February 06, 2017, 11:02:13 PM
You are out of touch. A high court order by those who are owed can get enforcement officers in to take possession of goods to satisfy the debt.
absolute total rubbish...only after all attempts to settle the debt has failed...if you have been in business and chased people for money you will know this
Title: Re: Supreme Court rules against the McCanns in damages case.
Post by: Mr Gray on February 06, 2017, 11:10:39 PM
How to avoid bailiff action
If you're behind on payments or owe money, it's important that you deal with these debts before bailiffs are instructed to act against you. Don't bury your head in the sand and hope it will go away. Being visited by bailiffs can be very stressful and upsetting, but it can usually be avoided if you speak to the people you owe money to and find a way to sort out your debts. The people you owe money to are also called creditors.
Title: Re: Supreme Court rules against the McCanns in damages case.
Post by: Mr Gray on February 06, 2017, 11:13:36 PM
They have the power to repossess your property, or take your possessions and sell them – giving the proceeds to your creditor to pay back what you owe them. The court will only send a bailiff if you fail to maintain payments towards a County Court Judgement (CCJ).
Title: Re: Supreme Court rules against the McCanns in damages case.
Post by: ShiningInLuz on February 06, 2017, 11:22:47 PM
They have the power to repossess your property, or take your possessions and sell them – giving the proceeds to your creditor to pay back what you owe them. The court will only send a bailiff if you fail to maintain payments towards a County Court Judgement (CCJ).
Hint: Learn the difference between a CCJ and a bankruptcy order.
Title: Re: Supreme Court rules against the McCanns in damages case.
Post by: Mr Gray on February 06, 2017, 11:26:39 PM
But St Goncalo of Amaral would never be so mean, surely?
We are discussing what could happen if the McCanns don't pay what they have been ordered to pay by the Portuguese Courts. It's nothing to do with Amaral.
Title: Re: Supreme Court rules against the McCanns in damages case.
Post by: Mr Gray on February 07, 2017, 07:18:24 AM
We are discussing what could happen if the McCanns don't pay what they have been ordered to pay by the Portuguese Courts. It's nothing to do with Amaral.
One thing the McCanns won't do is ignore the debt so there won't be any bailiffs going round
Title: Re: Supreme Court rules against the McCanns in damages case.
Post by: G-Unit on February 07, 2017, 07:35:10 AM
It's rubbish to think the Portuguese libel judgement is valid in the uk Total rubbish and shows how little the author understands
If the go bankrupt they resign as directors first
If the go bankrupt they resign as directors first
I cannot see them doing that can you .......unless they are not expecting another penny/euro.... to go in it
Title: Re: Supreme Court rules against the McCanns in damages case.
Post by: xtina on February 07, 2017, 08:39:06 AM
The written verdict.
Page 38 Point 75
em 17/10/2007, Clarence Mitchell, porta-voz doa AA. Kate Mccann e Gerald MacCann, afirmou que estes eran suficientemente realistas para admitireme que a sua filha estaria provavelmente morta
Or in English . . .
On 17/10/2007, Clarence Mitchell, a spokesman for AA [the appellants]. Kate McCann and Gerald McCann, stated that they were sufficiently realistic to admit that their daughter was probably dead
em 17/10/2007, Clarence Mitchell, porta-voz doa AA. Kate Mccann e Gerald MacCann, afirmou que estes eran suficientemente realistas para admitireme que a sua filha estaria provavelmente morta
Or in English . . .
On 17/10/2007, Clarence Mitchell, a spokesman for AA [the appellants]. Kate McCann and Gerald McCann, stated that they were sufficiently realistic to admit that their daughter was probably dead
Kate and Gerry McCann admitted for the first time yesterday that Madeleine is probably dead.
The couple have until now clung to the chance of finding their missing daughter alive. But their hopes have faded as it nears six months since the four-year-old vanished from a resort in Portugal.
Spokesman Clarence Mitchell said: "Gerry and Kate are realistic enough to know there's a probability she is dead." The couple, both 39, are nevertheless continuing their campaign to keep the hunt for Maddy in the public eye. Adverts will appear in European newspapers at the weekend.
Mr Mitchell added: "They need to know what has happened. This uncertainty cannot hang over them for the rest of their lives."
Title: Re: Supreme Court rules against the McCanns in damages case.
Post by: G-Unit on February 07, 2017, 08:59:55 AM
em 17/10/2007, Clarence Mitchell, porta-voz doa AA. Kate Mccann e Gerald MacCann, afirmou que estes eran suficientemente realistas para admitireme que a sua filha estaria provavelmente morta
Or in English . . .
On 17/10/2007, Clarence Mitchell, a spokesman for AA [the appellants]. Kate McCann and Gerald McCann, stated that they were sufficiently realistic to admit that their daughter was probably dead
They're getting on a bit to learn the lesson that you shouldn't count your chickens. Litigation is a gamble and gambling is a risky game.
Makes no difference Depends how much they are asked for Depends on how much they have Depends on whether they choose to use the fund Depends on whether amaral suing is a reasonable possibility Depends on how much equity they have in their house We just have to wait and see
Title: Re: Supreme Court rules against the McCanns in damages case.
Post by: Mr Gray on February 07, 2017, 09:59:34 AM
Enforcement Officers go in before bankruptcy. What the point of making someone bankrupt if they have assets which will cover the debt.
A reasonable repayment plan will be accepted by the court Those owed money cannot send in bailiffs in this case Their only option is to threaten bankruptcy
Title: Re: Supreme Court rules against the McCanns in damages case.
Post by: G-Unit on February 07, 2017, 11:08:35 AM
Makes no difference Depends how much they are asked for Depends on how much they have Depends on whether they choose to use the fund Depends on whether amaral suing is a reasonable possibility Depends on how much equity they have in their house We just have to wait and see
The decision over whether to use the fund or not is not the McCann's. There are four other directors who will need to be sure that using the fund is acceptable.
Title: Re: Supreme Court rules against the McCanns in damages case.
Post by: stephen25000 on February 07, 2017, 11:11:48 AM
The decision over whether to use the fund or not is not the McCann's. There are four other directors who will need to be sure that using the fund is acceptable.
Exactly G-Unit.
it does not belong solely in the Mccann's hands.
Title: Re: Supreme Court rules against the McCanns in damages case.
Post by: faithlilly on February 07, 2017, 12:01:09 PM
SC judgement in Portuguese if anyone wants to start translating.
No different from any other debt I've chased people for money for 40 yrs so I know all about it
I met a particular German once when doing what I do. After a while it became appparent he was the only U-Boat Commander who flew a Focke Wulf 190 whilst sitting in a Tiger Tank. Nuff said.
Title: Re: Supreme Court rules against the McCanns in damages case.
Post by: Alice Purjorick on February 07, 2017, 12:38:41 PM
I suspect its not going to be easy reading for some,can see it now,the supreme court judges misunderstand the dog alerts.
If the Supreme Court are saying that Eddie and keela detected the scent of human blood and human cadaver then they certainly do not understand the alerts
Title: Re: Supreme Court rules against the McCanns in damages case.
Post by: Mr Gray on February 07, 2017, 04:30:51 PM
Hmmm ... therefore the same interpretation from Textusa applies to Robert Murat and any other innocent person.
Think I'll probably hang on and wait for a translation from an unbiased source. Which is neither of the two mentioned or Ms Donn.
However it indicates the way the spin is going to be spun.
Title: Re: Supreme Court rules against the McCanns in damages case.
Post by: Mr Gray on February 07, 2017, 05:08:37 PM
Not sure how much we can trust the accuracy of donn but the presumption of innocence is I believe a fundamental human right ... so have the Supreme Court totally ignored the human rights of the McCanns Perhaps this will be an easier route to the ECHR if the McCanns decide to take that route
Title: Re: Supreme Court rules against the McCanns in damages case.
Post by: Alice Purjorick on February 07, 2017, 05:10:21 PM
Cold comfort.
When I am in the mire ankle deep head first it is rather irrelevant who else may be in the same position in the same dung heap.
Title: Re: Supreme Court rules against the McCanns in damages case.
Post by: Mr Gray on February 07, 2017, 05:12:33 PM
As the Municipal Engineer said : It may be shit to you boy, but it's my bread and butter, and as people like me say to people like you. If that's your best shot you are in the wrong ring. Cue a there I wuz story about being a Sensei in Origami.
Title: Re: Supreme Court rules against the McCanns in damages case.
Post by: Mr Gray on February 07, 2017, 05:50:53 PM
As the Municipal Engineer said : It may be shit to you boy, but it's my bread and butter, and as people like me say to people like you. If that's your best shot you are in the wrong ring. Cue a there I wuz story about being a Sensei in Origami.
You seem to be taking this far too seriously
Title: Re: Supreme Court rules against the McCanns in damages case.
Post by: ferryman on February 07, 2017, 05:57:27 PM
If the Supreme Court are saying that Eddie and keela detected the scent of human blood and human cadaver then they certainly do not understand the alerts
More to the point, unlike the (exemplary first-instance judge) the (appeal-court) judges didn't read those parts of the files, written by people who understand interpretation of dog-alerts, that state the dog-alerts have no value.
Title: Re: Supreme Court rules against the McCanns in damages case.
Post by: jassi on February 07, 2017, 06:03:21 PM
I suppose we need to wait for the translation to see exactly what is mentioned.
Title: Re: Supreme Court rules against the McCanns in damages case.
Post by: Mr Gray on February 07, 2017, 06:08:35 PM
More to the point, unlike the (exemplary first-instance judge) the (appeal-court) judges didn't read those parts of the files, written by people who understand interpretation of dog-alerts, that state the dog-alerts have no value.
It's all very odd
Title: Re: Supreme Court rules against the McCanns in damages case.
Post by: xtina on February 07, 2017, 06:10:28 PM
“It should be added that we are before an archival decision by the Public Ministry, which is liable of change by many ways.
As such, besides appealing via jurisdiction, through the opening of an instruction (CPP art.287º), and to making a claim to the higher hierarchy (CPP art. 378º), the inquiry can be reponed if new elements of proof appear that invalidate the grounds invoked by the Public Ministry in the archival dispatch (CPP art. 279º)-
Besides, that is said in the “Note to the Media” disclosed by the PGR on 21/7/08 in which was announced that it had been determined the archival of the inquiry and informed that the “same could be reopened, by initiative of the Public Ministry ou by request of an interested party, if new elements of proof would appear that originated serious, pertinent and consequent diligences” (#14 of proven facts).
In this way, not being the alluded archival dispatch a written decision on a strict sense, nor assuming definitive aspect, much less would be justified the invoking of the principle of presumption of innocence to restrict freedom of expression.” (page 69 of sentence, 1st picture of post)
And:
“And let it not be said, also, that the appellants were cleared by the archival dispatch of the crime-process.
In truth, the alluded dispatch wasn’t pronounced because the Public Ministry gained the conviction that the appellants did not commit any crime (as by nº1 of the art. 277º of the CPP)
Such archival, in the case, was determined because it wasn’t possible for the Public Ministry to obtain enough legally admissible indicia of the practice of a crime by the appellants (as by nº2, art. 277º of CPP)
There is, then, a significant difference, and not merely of semantics, between the grounds legally admissible of the archival dispatch.
It doesn’t seem, then, acceptable that it should be considered that the referred dispatch, grounded on insufficiency of indicia, should be equivalent to the proof of innocence.
We consider, therefore, that the invoking of the breaking of the principle of presumption of innocence, should not be received, not weighing such principle in the decision that has to be taken.” (page 70 of sentence)
Very clearly and very explicitly the Supreme Justice Court is saying that the McCanns have NOT been cleared.
Note, it has not said the McCanns were guilty. It is just saying that they have not been considered by the Portuguese Justice System as innocent.
We do believe that this is historic and rebates definitely all those saying that the couple was cleared by the Portuguese justice.
On January 31 2017 this was set straight. Posted by Textusa at 10:49
Madeleine CaseTweets @McCannCaseTweet I can't breathe, judge suggest to Attorney General McCanns be re-interviewed as Tavares de Almeida report is part of proven facts #mccann
Title: Re: Supreme Court rules against the McCanns in damages case.
Post by: jassi on February 07, 2017, 06:11:43 PM
That will be nice for them 8(0(*
Title: Re: Supreme Court rules against the McCanns in damages case.
Post by: John on February 07, 2017, 06:14:30 PM
The comments in the Portugal Resident reflect what many have been saying for years. Nobody can claim to have been cleared until it is proven one way or another what happened to Madeleine. As stated, archiving the case has no significance to anyone's guilt or innocence.
Title: Re: Supreme Court rules against the McCanns in damages case.
Post by: John on February 07, 2017, 06:18:44 PM
More to the point, unlike the (exemplary first-instance judge) the (appeal-court) judges didn't read those parts of the files, written by people who understand interpretation of dog-alerts, that state the dog-alerts have no value.
They have a value to investigators otherwise why bother with dogs at all. The thing about dog alerts is that they raise suspicion.
Title: Re: Supreme Court rules against the McCanns in damages case.
Post by: Mr Gray on February 07, 2017, 07:19:04 PM
The comments in the Portugal Resident reflect what many have been saying for years. Nobody can claim to have been cleared until it is proven one way or another what happened to Madeleine. As stated, archiving the case has no significance to anyone's guilt or innocence.
So John are you saying that amaral may be right and the McCanns are implicated in a crime
Title: Re: Supreme Court rules against the McCanns in damages case.
Post by: stephen25000 on February 07, 2017, 07:24:36 PM
' The court should note that all the witnesses are close to the AA, (family member, phycologist and lawyer) and that in their statements they clearly tried to minimise the theories predating the book and the documentary and, at the same time, naturally tried to give special emphasis to the impact of the book and DVD on the general wellbeing (mood)of the AA.
– This is especially so in relation to the witness Michael Terence Wright, who was in charge of assisting the Applicants (AA) in the dissemination of campaigns and monitoring/surveillance of some sites as well as of information present on the internet, after the disappearance of the minor Madeleine Beth McCann. '
Title: Re: Supreme Court rules against the McCanns in damages case.
Post by: carlymichelle on February 07, 2017, 08:21:15 PM
so if im reading this right they want to re intervew the mcanns?
Title: Re: Supreme Court rules against the McCanns in damages case.
Post by: jassi on February 07, 2017, 08:24:14 PM
Title: Re: Supreme Court rules against the McCanns in damages case.
Post by: stephen25000 on February 07, 2017, 08:31:18 PM
' The author of the book “Maddie, the Truth of the Lie” , the co-defendant (co-R) Gonçalo Amaral was an investigator in the case of the disappearance of Madeleine McCann , having been the target of repeated personal and professional attacks by the applicants (AA) in the national and international media. '
Title: Re: Supreme Court rules against the McCanns in damages case.
Post by: stephen25000 on February 07, 2017, 08:37:20 PM
' We believe that the main damage was caused to the McCann arguidos, who lost the possibility to prove what they have protested since they were constituted arguidos: their innocence towards the fateful event; the investigation was also disturbed, because said facts remain unclarified.”(...) '
Title: Re: Supreme Court rules against the McCanns in damages case.
Post by: G-Unit on February 07, 2017, 08:45:26 PM
' The court should note that all the witnesses are close to the AA, (family member, phycologist and lawyer) and that in their statements they clearly tried to minimise the theories predating the book and the documentary and, at the same time, naturally tried to give special emphasis to the impact of the book and DVD on the general wellbeing (mood)of the AA.
– This is especially so in relation to the witness Michael Terence Wright, who was in charge of assisting the Applicants (AA) in the dissemination of campaigns and monitoring/surveillance of some sites as well as of information present on the internet, after the disappearance of the minor Madeleine Beth McCann. '
This link is to the judgement of the Appeal Court, April 2016?
Title: Re: Supreme Court rules against the McCanns in damages case.
Post by: stephen25000 on February 07, 2017, 08:47:20 PM
...and since the Supreme Court rejected the Mccann's appeal, that 2016 appeal judgement will stand, I presume.
supplemented by 75 additional pages of reasoning ?{)(**
Title: Re: Supreme Court rules against the McCanns in damages case.
Post by: xtina on February 07, 2017, 08:54:11 PM
41. At the beginning of the documentary, the defendant Gonçalo Amaral states the following: -“ My name is Gonçalo Amaral and I was a police investigator for the Judiciary Police for 27 years. I co-ordinated the investigation of the disappearance of Madeleine McCann on the 3rd of May 2007. During the next 50 minutes I will prove that the child was not abducted and that she died in the holiday apartment in Praia da Luz. Discover all the truth about what happened that day. A death that many want to cover up”
42. At the end of the documentary, the defendant Gonçalo Amaral states the following: -“ What I know tells me that Madeleine McCann died in apartment 5A on teh 3rd of May 2007. I am certain that this truth will one day be verified. The investigation was brutally interrupted and there was a hasty political archival .There is some who hide the truth but, sooner or later, the varnish will crack and the revelations will surface. Only then will there be justice for Madeleine MCCann.”
I haven't read it. No doubt I will get it all, chapter and verse eventually.
In my opinion Amaral's blogspot ~ Textusa ~ and Ms Donn seem to be ensuring that their interpretation is going to be the definitive one. Last time I checked neither the English speaking MSM or the Portuguese MSM appeared to have picked up on the release of the judgement.
Title: Re: Supreme Court rules against the McCanns in damages case.
Post by: Eleanor on February 08, 2017, 01:04:57 AM
In my opinion Amaral's blogspot ~ Textusa ~ and Ms Donn seem to be ensuring that their interpretation is going to be the definitive one. Last time I checked neither the English speaking MSM or the Portuguese MSM appeared to have picked up on the release of the judgement.
Don't worry too much about it. It will all come out in the wash, once we have a half decent translation.
Title: Re: Supreme Court rules against the McCanns in damages case.
Post by: ShiningInLuz on February 08, 2017, 01:16:33 AM
75 or76 pages of translation onwards, you won't have anything but disagreement. Such is life.
Of course there is going to be disagreement ~ but why have two McCann unfriendly blogs apparently been able to jump the gun in getting the message out?
Title: Re: Supreme Court rules against the McCanns in damages case.
Post by: Mr Gray on February 08, 2017, 04:42:53 AM
Of course there is going to be disagreement ~ but why have two McCann unfriendly blogs apparently been able to jump the gun in getting the message out?
We have a good idea what the judgement is McCanns human rights ignored They may have a better case with the presumption of innocence It's more clear cut Interesting to see what happens
Title: Re: Supreme Court rules against the McCanns in damages case.
Post by: Mr Gray on February 08, 2017, 05:12:04 AM
If this translation is correct It may not be If the McCanns aren't entitled to the presumption of innocence because they haven't been cleared then no suspect in Portugal is entitled to the presumption of innocence which is totally at odds with the declaration of human rights which Portugal I presume is signed up to
It would make Portugals justice system a laughing stock
Title: Re: Supreme Court rules against the McCanns in damages case.
Post by: slartibartfast on February 08, 2017, 08:52:25 AM
Of course there is going to be disagreement ~ but why have two McCann unfriendly blogs apparently been able to jump the gun in getting the message out?
Well the judgement is there, why don't some McCann friendly people get on with the translation.
Title: Re: Supreme Court rules against the McCanns in damages case.
Post by: stephen25000 on February 08, 2017, 08:58:22 AM
If this translation is correct It may not be If the McCanns aren't entitled to the presumption of innocence because they haven't been cleared then no suspect in Portugal is entitled to the presumption of innocence which is totally at odds with the declaration of human rights which Portugal I presume is signed up to
It would make Portugals justice system a laughing stock
Why don't you wait for the translation ???
Title: Re: Supreme Court rules against the McCanns in damages case.
Post by: Alfie on February 08, 2017, 09:13:24 AM
Well the judgement is there, why don't some McCann friendly people get on with the translation.
We're just not as "into" it all as the McCann critics are (and we don't have a little army of Portuguese English speakers with a lot of time of their hands @)(++(* )
Title: Re: Supreme Court rules against the McCanns in damages case.
Post by: carlymichelle on February 08, 2017, 09:17:20 AM
Judges demolish McCanns' innocence Court acquits Gonçalo Amaral and points out that the couple was constituted as arguidos (suspects) with a "well-founded suspicion" of having committed a crime.
Kate and Gerry McCann are demolished in the judgement of the Supreme Court in which the former coordinator of the PJ is acquitted of paying half a million euros to the parents of the girl who disappeared in May 2007 in the Algarve. At stake is the book 'Maddie: The Truth of the Lie', in which Amaral argues that the girl died in an accident and that the body was concealed by the parents, who simulated an abduction.
The McCanns felt aggrieved by the book and sued the author. The Judge-Counsellors replied: "The defendant [Gonçalo Amaral] expressed his opinion in the light of the evidence and indications gathered in the investigation opened in virtue of the disappearance of Madeleine McCann on May 3, 2007 (...) Incidentally, the claimants (appellants, applicants) were constituted as arguidos in a criminal investigation, which implies that there was a well-founded suspicion of having committed crimes or crimes."
Kate and Gerry understand that the book is an attack on their honour and that the content results from the breach of professional secrecy by Gonçalo Amaral.
The Judge-Counsellors continue: "It is true that the criminal investigation was eventually archived, in virtue of none of the evidence that led to the constitution of the claimants as arguidos was confirmed. Nonetheless, even in the archiving dispatch serious reservations are made about the verisimilitude (reality of) of the allegation that Madeleine had been abducted."
As to the presumption of innocence invoked by the parents, they (Judges) consider that one should not say "that the claimants were acquitted through the order of archiving the criminal proceedings (investigation). The archiving was determined because it was not possible to obtain sufficient evidence of the practice of crimes. It does not seem reasonable to consider that said archiving dispatch, based on insufficient evidence, should be equated as substantiation (proof) of exoneration".
We have a good idea what the judgement is McCanns human rights ignored They may have a better case with the presumption of innocence It's more clear cut Interesting to see what happens
how where the mccs humane rights ignored ......
they can't run with the hares ...and hunt with the hounds...
they should never have gone after G A ....with the vengeance they did ...making it top priority
they themselves gave up there humane rights ..........when it suited ...
personal life wrote about........... by k mcc own hand in book............
– The fame and notoriety the applicants achieved in Portugal and worldwide is undeniable. The applicants can’t allow media interviews , including in the intimacy of their home, when these are favourable to them and then prohibit the publication of books and even comments , about public facts when allegedly these can be unfavourable to them.
– Therefore, the scope of the private life of the applicants, because of their notoriety or by their own choice, must be considered reduced, namely within the scope of No. 2 article 80 of the CC.
Title: Re: Supreme Court rules against the McCanns in damages case.
Post by: Alfie on February 08, 2017, 09:36:00 AM
Oh dear, that means Murat is still in the frame too, along with all the other arguidos I guess.... &%+((£
Title: Re: Supreme Court rules against the McCanns in damages case.
Post by: jassi on February 08, 2017, 09:40:12 AM
We're just not as "into" it all as the McCann critics are (and we don't have a little army of Portuguese English speakers with a lot of time of their hands @)(++(* )
Some like to debate using opinion, others like to use facts.
Title: Re: Supreme Court rules against the McCanns in damages case.
Post by: Brietta on February 08, 2017, 10:12:32 AM
Still perplexed why apparently none of the MSM is running with the judgement &%+((£
Title: Re: Supreme Court rules against the McCanns in damages case.
Post by: Alfie on February 08, 2017, 10:16:34 AM
Some like to debate using opinion, others like to use facts.
Which bracket do you put yourself in btw? As it seems to me a lot of your posts in support of your suspicions are wholly opinion based. The McCanns behaved "oddly", a would-be abductor "wouldn't behave in that way", a caring mother "would do this" etc etc etc.
Title: Re: Supreme Court rules against the McCanns in damages case.
Post by: stephen25000 on February 08, 2017, 10:27:52 AM
The decision was reported in all the mainstream PT press, how about the substance of the judgement which was released yesterday?
Blogs and Natasha have intimated the release and have started their analysis for public consumption. No-one else apparently has, not even a mention of the release. Is it still embargoed information?
Title: Re: Supreme Court rules against the McCanns in damages case.
Post by: Alice Purjorick on February 08, 2017, 10:59:46 AM
If this translation is correct It may not be If the McCanns aren't entitled to the presumption of innocence because they haven't been cleared then no suspect in Portugal is entitled to the presumption of innocence which is totally at odds with the declaration of human rights which Portugal I presume is signed up to
It would make Portugals justice system a laughing stock
We have been hearing that story for a while now.
Title: Re: Supreme Court rules against the McCanns in damages case.
Post by: ferryman on February 08, 2017, 11:00:07 AM
I could very well be wrong on this but so far no-one is posting up anything to correct me.
If the information is still under some sort of embargo, it is my opinion that someone somewhere is in serious breach of the law in Portugal or contempt of court, one or both.
Title: Re: Supreme Court rules against the McCanns in damages case.
Post by: jassi on February 08, 2017, 11:07:15 AM
I could very well be wrong on this but so far no-one is posting up anything to correct me.
If the information is still under some sort of embargo, it is my opinion that someone somewhere is in serious breach of the law in Portugal or contempt of court, one or both.
The only relevant question is whether or not the scuttlebutt that the courts did not find in favour of Drs McCann is true. It would appear the scuttlebutt is true. The translation of all 76 pages into English is then rather superfluous/irrelevant to the result. I can see the translation being pored over by uninformed nitpickers with words like "well it's obvious what is meant there is..............." perm any one from six to suit the theory being propounded. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cwqhdRs4jyA
Title: Re: Supreme Court rules against the McCanns in damages case.
Post by: jassi on February 08, 2017, 11:21:23 AM
Judges demolish McCanns' innocence by Joana Morais 4 hrs ago Court acquits Gonçalo Amaral and points out that the couple was constituted as arguidos (suspects) with a "well-founded suspicion" of having committed a crime.
Kate and Gerry McCann are demolished in the judgement of the Supreme Court in which the former coordinator of the PJ is acquitted of paying half a million euros to the parents of the girl who disappeared in May 2007 in the Algarve. At stake is the book 'Maddie: The Truth of the Lie', in which Amaral argues that the girl died in an accident and that the body was concealed by the parents, who simulated an abduction.
The McCanns felt aggrieved by the book and sued the author. The Judge-Counsellors replied: "The defendant [Gonçalo Amaral] expressed his opinion in the light of the evidence and indications gathered in the investigation opened in virtue of the disappearance of Madeleine McCann on May 3, 2007 (...) Incidentally, the claimants (appellants, applicants) were constituted as arguidos in a criminal investigation, which implies that there was a well-founded suspicion of having committed crimes or crimes."
Kate and Gerry understand that the book is an attack on their honour and that the content results from the breach of professional secrecy by Gonçalo Amaral.
The Judge-Counsellors continue: "It is true that the criminal investigation was eventually archived, in virtue of none of the evidence that led to the constitution of the claimants as arguidos was confirmed. Nonetheless, even in the archiving dispatch serious reservations are made about the verisimilitude (reality of) of the allegation that Madeleine had been abducted."
As to the presumption of innocence invoked by the parents, they (Judges) consider that one should not say "that the claimants were acquitted through the order of archiving the criminal proceedings (investigation). The archiving was determined because it was not possible to obtain sufficient evidence of the practice of crimes. It does not seem reasonable to consider that said archiving dispatch, based on insufficient evidence, should be equated as substantiation (proof) of exoneration".
in Correio da Manhã, February 8, 2017
Title: Re: Supreme Court rules against the McCanns in damages case.
Post by: carlymichelle on February 08, 2017, 11:36:48 AM
Judges demolish McCanns' innocence by Joana Morais 4 hrs ago Court acquits Gonçalo Amaral and points out that the couple was constituted as arguidos (suspects) with a "well-founded suspicion" of having committed a crime.
Kate and Gerry McCann are demolished in the judgement of the Supreme Court in which the former coordinator of the PJ is acquitted of paying half a million euros to the parents of the girl who disappeared in May 2007 in the Algarve. At stake is the book 'Maddie: The Truth of the Lie', in which Amaral argues that the girl died in an accident and that the body was concealed by the parents, who simulated an abduction.
The McCanns felt aggrieved by the book and sued the author. The Judge-Counsellors replied: "The defendant [Gonçalo Amaral] expressed his opinion in the light of the evidence and indications gathered in the investigation opened in virtue of the disappearance of Madeleine McCann on May 3, 2007 (...) Incidentally, the claimants (appellants, applicants) were constituted as arguidos in a criminal investigation, which implies that there was a well-founded suspicion of having committed crimes or crimes."
Kate and Gerry understand that the book is an attack on their honour and that the content results from the breach of professional secrecy by Gonçalo Amaral.
The Judge-Counsellors continue: "It is true that the criminal investigation was eventually archived, in virtue of none of the evidence that led to the constitution of the claimants as arguidos was confirmed. Nonetheless, even in the archiving dispatch serious reservations are made about the verisimilitude (reality of) of the allegation that Madeleine had been abducted."
As to the presumption of innocence invoked by the parents, they (Judges) consider that one should not say "that the claimants were acquitted through the order of archiving the criminal proceedings (investigation). The archiving was determined because it was not possible to obtain sufficient evidence of the practice of crimes. It does not seem reasonable to consider that said archiving dispatch, based on insufficient evidence, should be equated as substantiation (proof) of exoneration".
in Correio da Manhã, February 8, 2017
@)(++(* i posted that and it got ignored
Title: Re: Supreme Court rules against the McCanns in damages case.
Post by: Alfie on February 08, 2017, 11:44:08 AM
Already been mentioned, I believe. His position has no bearing on that of the McCanns.
It's the principle though. If the McCanns, having been arguidos, are not allowed the presumption of innocence then that surely goes for all the arguidos. If not, perhaps someone can point to something in the judgement that means that only the McCanns innocence is not allowed to be presumed.
Title: Re: Supreme Court rules against the McCanns in damages case.
Post by: ferryman on February 08, 2017, 11:56:45 AM
Unfortunately, this cr*p really is out there, but just not, thank goodness, in the UK media.
Someone at Stop the Myths who lives in Holland says it's all over their media.
Title: Re: Supreme Court rules against the McCanns in damages case.
Post by: G-Unit on February 08, 2017, 12:04:35 PM
It's the principle though. If the McCanns, having been arguidos, are not allowed the presumption of innocence then that surely goes for all the arguidos. If not, perhaps someone can point to something in the judgement that means that only the McCanns innocence is not allowed to be presumed.
I think what the judges are saying is that the archiving dispatch cannot be used as proof of innocence, because it isn't. The inference being that the McCann's/their lawyers argued that it was.
Title: Re: Supreme Court rules against the McCanns in damages case.
Post by: jassi on February 08, 2017, 12:05:22 PM
Only a matter of time. MSM will be eager as anyone else to sell papers
Oh, haven't you heard? No one's interested in the McCanns anymore and stories about them don't sell papers, they only put them on the front page because the stories are free. I learned that from Faithlilly so it must be true. 8((()*/
Title: Re: Supreme Court rules against the McCanns in damages case.
Post by: Alice Purjorick on February 08, 2017, 12:07:03 PM
Judges demolish McCanns' innocence by Joana Morais 4 hrs ago Court acquits Gonçalo Amaral and points out that the couple was constituted as arguidos (suspects) with a "well-founded suspicion" of having committed a crime.
Kate and Gerry McCann are demolished in the judgement of the Supreme Court in which the former coordinator of the PJ is acquitted of paying half a million euros to the parents of the girl who disappeared in May 2007 in the Algarve. At stake is the book 'Maddie: The Truth of the Lie', in which Amaral argues that the girl died in an accident and that the body was concealed by the parents, who simulated an abduction.
The McCanns felt aggrieved by the book and sued the author. The Judge-Counsellors replied: "The defendant [Gonçalo Amaral] expressed his opinion in the light of the evidence and indications gathered in the investigation opened in virtue of the disappearance of Madeleine McCann on May 3, 2007 (...) Incidentally, the claimants (appellants, applicants) were constituted as arguidos in a criminal investigation, which implies that there was a well-founded suspicion of having committed crimes or crimes."
Kate and Gerry understand that the book is an attack on their honour and that the content results from the breach of professional secrecy by Gonçalo Amaral.
The Judge-Counsellors continue: "It is true that the criminal investigation was eventually archived, in virtue of none of the evidence that led to the constitution of the claimants as arguidos was confirmed. Nonetheless, even in the archiving dispatch serious reservations are made about the verisimilitude (reality of) of the allegation that Madeleine had been abducted."
As to the presumption of innocence invoked by the parents, they (Judges) consider that one should not say "that the claimants were acquitted through the order of archiving the criminal proceedings (investigation). The archiving was determined because it was not possible to obtain sufficient evidence of the practice of crimes. It does not seem reasonable to consider that said archiving dispatch, based on insufficient evidence, should be equated as substantiation (proof) of exoneration".
in Correio da Manhã, February 8, 2017
Good men! clearly fans of The Mikado.
Title: Re: Supreme Court rules against the McCanns in damages case.
Post by: ferryman on February 08, 2017, 12:09:16 PM
I think what the judges are saying is that the archiving dispatch cannot be used as proof of innocence, because it isn't. The inference being that the McCann's/their lawyers argued that it was.
In countries where the rule of law is respected, there is never a requirement on those accused to 'prove' their innocence; rather, on their accusers to prove their guilt.
The whole "case" against Kate and Gerry pretty much rests on the incompetent deployment of one dog (in particular).
Title: Re: Supreme Court rules against the McCanns in damages case.
Post by: pathfinder73 on February 08, 2017, 12:09:26 PM
“While one or both of them may be innocent, there is no clear evidence that eliminates them from involvement in Madeleine’s disappearance.” Leicester Police in Court
Nothing has changed as I've said countless times. Only the naive would believe they have been cleared whatever others say to control the circus.
"We give information whilst it’s appropriate to produce but whilst there’s an investigation going on and where it’s potentially murder, we say very little, we say very little. You read a lot in the press but that doesn’t come from us. We deal with about 250 murders a year and all of them are dealt with in exactly the same way in terms of how we deal with the media."
"The Portuguese Authorities, the Portuguese Police retain lead."
“While one or both of them may be innocent, there is no clear evidence that eliminates them from involvement in Madeleine’s disappearance.” Leicester Police in Court
Nothing has changed as I've said countless times. Only the naive would believe they have been cleared whatever others say to control the circus.
"We give information whilst it’s appropriate to produce but whilst there’s an investigation going on and where it’s potentially murder, we say very little, we say very little. You read a lot in the press but that doesn’t come from us. We deal with about 250 murders a year and all of them are dealt with in exactly the same way in terms of how we deal with the media."
"The Portuguese Authorities, the Portuguese Police retain lead."
Unfortunately, this cr*p really is out there, but just not, thank goodness, in the UK media.
Someone at Stop the Myths who lives in Holland says it's all over their media.
Probably from the same sources ... it seems Correio da Manhã has cornered the market in Portugal ... I can't find anyone else leading with it.
Quote The Supreme Court ruled that the couple Kate and Gerry McCann were made an accused in the case of the disappearance of their daughter Maddie, for "founded suspicion" of having committed a crime. The statements are included in the ruling of the court that acquitted the former coordinator of PJ Gonçalo Amaral to pay half a million euros to the parents of the girl who disappeared almost a decade ago, according to Correio da Manhã.
The couple McCann lost the appeal filed in the Supreme Court of Justice against Gonçalo Amaral, author of the book "Maddie: The Truth of the Lie." In the book, the former PJ inspector raised suspicions that the child's parents were involved in the abduction. Not only did the court give the former inspector a reason, but they reminded him that insufficient evidence is not the same as proof of innocence.
"The defendant [Gonçalo Amaral] expressed his opinion in the light of the evidence and evidence gathered in the investigation initiated by the disappearance of Madeleine McCann on 3 May 2007. (...) Applicants [Kate and Gerry McCann] have been indicted in a criminal investigation. What implies that there was a well-founded suspicion of having committed crimes or crimes, "can be read in the ruling to which Correio da Manhã had access. http://www.jornaleconomico.sapo.pt/noticias/justica-supremo-arrasa-inocencia-dos-mccann-120311
Extraordinary ruling which flies in the face of logic. It will be interesting to see how it will be addressed.
Title: Re: Supreme Court rules against the McCanns in damages case.
Post by: xtina on February 08, 2017, 12:21:15 PM
In countries where the rule of law is respected, there is never a requirement on those accused to 'prove' their innocence; rather, on their accusers to prove their guilt.
The whole "case" against Kate and Gerry pretty much rests on the incompetent deployment of one dog (in particular).
Look on the positive side. If they had been playing on a different pitch they might have won. If the Titanic had had radar it might not have hit the iceberg. The sad facts, however, are they weren't and it didn't have...............................................
Another idle thought passing through my mind: If the supporters here had been in charge of the Richard III thingy they would be well on the way to having excavated half of Leicestershire in their efforts to find a straight one.
Title: Re: Supreme Court rules against the McCanns in damages case.
Post by: Alfie on February 08, 2017, 12:26:58 PM
So basically what it means is - if you are made an arguido, but the case against you is shelved due to a lack of evidence, you can legitimately be tried in the court of public opinion by anyone who wishes to write a scurrilous book about you, based on a "thesis" which has no actual evidence to support it. That all seems pretty just, doesn't it?
Title: Re: Supreme Court rules against the McCanns in damages case.
Post by: faithlilly on February 08, 2017, 12:30:14 PM
Oh, haven't you heard? No one's interested in the McCanns anymore and stories about them don't sell papers, they only put them on the front page because the stories are free. I learned that from Faithlilly so it must be true. 8((()*/
Obviously Clarence has found a way to spin this on yet hence no mention of it in the U.K. press 8(0(*
Title: Re: Supreme Court rules against the McCanns in damages case.
Post by: jassi on February 08, 2017, 12:31:07 PM
Probably from the same sources ... it seems Correio da Manhã has cornered the market in Portugal ... I can't find anyone else leading with it.
Quote The Supreme Court ruled that the couple Kate and Gerry McCann were made an accused in the case of the disappearance of their daughter Maddie, for "founded suspicion" of having committed a crime. The statements are included in the ruling of the court that acquitted the former coordinator of PJ Gonçalo Amaral to pay half a million euros to the parents of the girl who disappeared almost a decade ago, according to Correio da Manhã.
The couple McCann lost the appeal filed in the Supreme Court of Justice against Gonçalo Amaral, author of the book "Maddie: The Truth of the Lie." In the book, the former PJ inspector raised suspicions that the child's parents were involved in the abduction. Not only did the court give the former inspector a reason, but they reminded him that insufficient evidence is not the same as proof of innocence.
"The defendant [Gonçalo Amaral] expressed his opinion in the light of the evidence and evidence gathered in the investigation initiated by the disappearance of Madeleine McCann on 3 May 2007. (...) Applicants [Kate and Gerry McCann] have been indicted in a criminal investigation. What implies that there was a well-founded suspicion of having committed crimes or crimes, "can be read in the ruling to which Correio da Manhã had access. http://www.jornaleconomico.sapo.pt/noticias/justica-supremo-arrasa-inocencia-dos-mccann-120311
Extraordinary ruling which flies in the face of logic. It will be interesting to see how it will be addressed.
Who do you have in mind?
Title: Re: Supreme Court rules against the McCanns in damages case.
Post by: xtina on February 08, 2017, 12:40:33 PM
Probably from the same sources ... it seems Correio da Manhã has cornered the market in Portugal ... I can't find anyone else leading with it.
Quote The Supreme Court ruled that the couple Kate and Gerry McCann were made an accused in the case of the disappearance of their daughter Maddie, for "founded suspicion" of having committed a crime. The statements are included in the ruling of the court that acquitted the former coordinator of PJ Gonçalo Amaral to pay half a million euros to the parents of the girl who disappeared almost a decade ago, according to Correio da Manhã.
The couple McCann lost the appeal filed in the Supreme Court of Justice against Gonçalo Amaral, author of the book "Maddie: The Truth of the Lie." In the book, the former PJ inspector raised suspicions that the child's parents were involved in the abduction. Not only did the court give the former inspector a reason, but they reminded him that insufficient evidence is not the same as proof of innocence.
"The defendant [Gonçalo Amaral] expressed his opinion in the light of the evidence and evidence gathered in the investigation initiated by the disappearance of Madeleine McCann on 3 May 2007. (...) Applicants [Kate and Gerry McCann] have been indicted in a criminal investigation. What implies that there was a well-founded suspicion of having committed crimes or crimes, "can be read in the ruling to which Correio da Manhã had access. http://www.jornaleconomico.sapo.pt/noticias/justica-supremo-arrasa-inocencia-dos-mccann-120311
Extraordinary ruling which flies in the face of logic. It will be interesting to see how it will be addressed.
probably waiting for the written verdict to be released
the main thing is here almost everyone knows.... the judges ruled against the mccs ...
probably the nearest thing to justice ...maddie will get ....
but at least it has been shown .the abduction is not as cut and dried as some think .......
and the mccs was not actually cleared ....as some think..........
seems that should go on the myth link..... @)(++(*
Court acquits Gonçalo Amaral and points out that the couple was constituted as arguidos (suspects) with a "well-founded suspicion" of having committed a crime.
Title: Re: Supreme Court rules against the McCanns in damages case.
Post by: Brietta on February 08, 2017, 12:57:59 PM
probably waiting for the written verdict to be released
the main thing is here almost everyone knows.... the judges ruled against the mccs ...
probably the nearest thing to justice ...maddie will get ....
but at least it has been shown .the abduction is not as cut and dried as some think .......
and the mccs was not actually cleared ....as some think..........
seems that should go on the myth link..... @)(++(*
Court acquits Gonçalo Amaral and points out that the couple was constituted as arguidos (suspects) with a "well-founded suspicion" of having committed a crime.
What is being promoted on the blogs and Correio da Manhã if not the written verdict?
Title: Re: Supreme Court rules against the McCanns in damages case.
Post by: Eleanor on February 08, 2017, 12:59:57 PM
Please let's remember that Presumption of Innocence is still part of British Law.
Title: Re: Supreme Court rules against the McCanns in damages case.
Post by: Brietta on February 08, 2017, 01:04:40 PM
probably waiting for the written verdict to be released
the main thing is here almost everyone knows.... the judges ruled against the mccs ...
probably the nearest thing to justice ...maddie will get ....
but at least it has been shown .the abduction is not as cut and dried as some think .......
and the mccs was not actually cleared ....as some think..........
seems that should go on the myth link..... @)(++(*
Court acquits Gonçalo Amaral and points out that the couple was constituted as arguidos (suspects) with a "well-founded suspicion" of having committed a crime.
I think what has been shown by the highest court in Portugal is an incompetent ruling out of step with decency and human rights accompanied by news manipulation. Did anything really change with the Revolução dos Cravos?
Title: Re: Supreme Court rules against the McCanns in damages case.
Post by: Erngath on February 08, 2017, 01:05:47 PM
I think what has been shown by the highest court in Portugal is an incompetent ruling out of step with decency and human rights accompanied by news manipulation. Did anything really change with the Revolução dos Cravos?
Only in the minds of a few, I fancy. Most will recognise the competence of the Portuguese State to determine its own affairs.
Title: Re: Supreme Court rules against the McCanns in damages case.
Post by: xtina on February 08, 2017, 01:14:44 PM
In countries where the rule of law is respected, there is never a requirement on those accused to 'prove' their innocence; rather, on their accusers to prove their guilt.
The whole "case" against Kate and Gerry pretty much rests on the incompetent deployment of one dog (in particular).
The same applies in Portugal. The McCanns were not required to prove their innocence. What was publicised was the erroneous belief that releasing someone from arguido status 'proved' them innocent. It didn't.
Title: Re: Supreme Court rules against the McCanns in damages case.
Post by: Alfie on February 08, 2017, 02:02:48 PM
The same applies in Portugal. The McCanns were not required to prove their innocence. What was publicised was the erroneous belief that releasing someone from arguido status 'proved' them innocent. It didn't.
In the eyes of the law in Portugal, are the McCanns innocent or not innocent?
Title: Re: Supreme Court rules against the McCanns in damages case.
Post by: G-Unit on February 08, 2017, 02:16:28 PM
In the eyes of the law in Portugal, are the McCanns innocent or not innocent?
silly question really ....
because the mccs at this moment in time ....... are classed as neither innocent ...or guilty most thought they were cleared ...but they were not ........
hopefully they will be re interviewed .and this time have to cooperate.....
Title: Re: Supreme Court rules against the McCanns in damages case.
Post by: Alfie on February 08, 2017, 02:22:48 PM
Firstly who are 'the law'? Secondly have they (whoever they are) ever given an opinion?
Is the Supreme court not "the law?" If it's not, then I'd like to know what it is. And yes it has given an opinion, about 75 pages of it I believe. So, in the eyes of the law, are the McCanns innocent or not innocent?
Title: Re: Supreme Court rules against the McCanns in damages case.
Post by: jassi on February 08, 2017, 02:30:19 PM
Maybe Isabel will know.
Title: Re: Supreme Court rules against the McCanns in damages case.
Post by: Alfie on February 08, 2017, 02:32:14 PM
because the mccs at this moment in time ....... are classed as neither innocent ...or guilty most thought they were cleared ...but they were not ........
hopefully they will be re interviewed .and this time have to cooperate.....
If in the eyes of the law the McCanns are neither innocent nor guilty then what is their legal position? A little bit guilty? A teensy bit innocent? What?
Title: Re: Supreme Court rules against the McCanns in damages case.
Post by: Alfie on February 08, 2017, 02:44:34 PM
It would seem that because the McCanns were once arguidos 9 years ago, that their legal status is now different from, say, mine or Joe Bloggs. Unlike me or Joe Bloggs, the McCanns are not allowed to be considered free of any implication of guilt in the disappearance of Madeleine McCann. So, what is the legal name for this state of purgartory they find themselves in?
Title: Re: Supreme Court rules against the McCanns in damages case.
Post by: G-Unit on February 08, 2017, 02:46:54 PM
Is the Supreme court not "the law?" If it's not, then I'd like to know what it is. And yes it has given an opinion, about 75 pages of it I believe. So, in the eyes of the law, are the McCanns innocent or not innocent?
If the Supreme Court gave an opinion about the innocence of the McCann's I haven't seen it as yet. If you have I would be interested to read it.
Title: Re: Supreme Court rules against the McCanns in damages case.
Post by: Mr Gray on February 08, 2017, 02:49:14 PM
If in the eyes of the law the McCanns are neither innocent nor guilty then what is their legal position? A little bit guilty? A teensy bit innocent? What?
I will say on that ....we will have to wait and see the outcome............i do think they have involved themselves ....a lot more than they was...of which i am very pleased about ....
and we know now its...... what some of us have said for years ....they were not cleared .....of guilt....
Title: Re: Supreme Court rules against the McCanns in damages case.
Post by: xtina on February 08, 2017, 02:56:03 PM
Inbetweenies. This may not be the case for all aquidos,some of whom may have been fully excluded during the investigative process.
There is no such status. You cannot be a bit guilty or a bit innocent. Was Murat "fully excluded", because the wording in the archiving report was exactly the same for all three arguidos.
Title: Re: Supreme Court rules against the McCanns in damages case.
Post by: faithlilly on February 08, 2017, 03:11:52 PM
If in the eyes of the law the McCanns are neither innocent nor guilty then what is their legal position? A little bit guilty? A teensy bit innocent? What?
I would think the nearest equivalent in British law is the Scottish not proven.
Title: Re: Supreme Court rules against the McCanns in damages case.
Post by: Eleanor on February 08, 2017, 03:12:22 PM
It would seem that because the McCanns were once arguidos 9 years ago, that their legal status is now different from, say, mine or Joe Bloggs. Unlike me or Joe Bloggs, the McCanns are not allowed to be considered free of any implication of guilt in the disappearance of Madeleine McCann. So, what is the legal name for this state of purgartory they find themselves in?
Limbo?
Title: Re: Supreme Court rules against the McCanns in damages case.
Post by: Alfie on February 08, 2017, 03:15:55 PM
I would think the nearest equivalent in British law is the Scottish not proven.
I think you'll find that that only applies after the defendant has been tried in a court, and never to describe someone who was interviewed for a crime many years ago and never charged.
Title: Re: Supreme Court rules against the McCanns in damages case.
Post by: faithlilly on February 08, 2017, 03:16:08 PM
Title: Re: Supreme Court rules against the McCanns in damages case.
Post by: Eleanor on February 08, 2017, 03:16:17 PM
As I have already said, please do not forget that Presumption of Innocence is still fundamental to British Law. Any suggestion that they were involved would be Libel.
Title: Re: Supreme Court rules against the McCanns in damages case.
Post by: Alfie on February 08, 2017, 03:16:39 PM
I think you'll find that that only applies after the defendant has been tried in a court, and never to describe someone who was interviewed for a crime many years ago and never charged.
It's not perfect but the nearest equivalent.
Title: Re: Supreme Court rules against the McCanns in damages case.
Post by: Brietta on February 08, 2017, 03:28:30 PM
I would think the nearest equivalent in British law is the Scottish not proven.
There is no equivalent to the B......d Verdict or any verdict at all. The McCanns have never been charged with any crime. The McCanns have never been tried with any crime. At a stroke it appears that three law lords by setting precedent ... have changed the law in Portugal. Whether or not that is how legislation is enacted in Portugal and whether or not Portuguese citizens are content to be propelled backward to less enlightened times remains to be seen. Are the Portuguese leaving Europe too? ... having abrogated human rights legislation as demonstrated by imposition of this insular verdict.
Title: Re: Supreme Court rules against the McCanns in damages case.
Post by: ShiningInLuz on February 08, 2017, 03:29:14 PM
There is a big difference between proved innocent and presumption of innocence.
The archiving report proved the McCanns innocent of neglect in Portuguese law, to all intents and purposes, irrespective of what others might think.
The McCanns are entitled to a presumption of innocence in anything more serious re Madeleine's disappearance, but such a presumption does not prove them innocent.
Title: Re: Supreme Court rules against the McCanns in damages case.
Post by: Alfie on February 08, 2017, 03:30:10 PM
You're making it up, unless you can provide a cite that such a status exists in law, to describe someone who has been investigated many years ago for a crime and no charges brought, ie: neither innocent, nor guilty but...?
Title: Re: Supreme Court rules against the McCanns in damages case.
Post by: Brietta on February 08, 2017, 03:35:30 PM
Not anywhere in the civilised world ... and one suspects not even in Portugal.
Title: Re: Supreme Court rules against the McCanns in damages case.
Post by: Alfie on February 08, 2017, 03:35:41 PM
Presumption of innocence is the principle that one is considered innocent unless proven guilty. Not considered a little bit dodgy, or hmmm...I bet they're not letting on the whole story or haha they failed to prove their innocence. Considered innocent until proven guilty The onus is not on anyone to prove their innocence, it should go without saying that in law one IS innocent until proven otherwise. It seems the PT Judiciary don't understand this concept.
Title: Re: Supreme Court rules against the McCanns in damages case.
Post by: jassi on February 08, 2017, 03:36:58 PM
Only a problem for the mCcanns, who are in this position, not for the rest of us.
Title: Re: Supreme Court rules against the McCanns in damages case.
Post by: Alfie on February 08, 2017, 03:38:22 PM
There is a big difference between proved innocent and presumption of innocence.
The archiving report proved the McCanns innocent of neglect in Portuguese law, to all intents and purposes, irrespective of what others might think.
The McCanns are entitled to a presumption of innocence in anything more serious re Madeleine's disappearance, but such a presumption does not prove them innocent.
If a suspect is investigated and is released without charge and suspect status removed ... that person is innocent.
Title: Re: Supreme Court rules against the McCanns in damages case.
Post by: Eleanor on February 08, 2017, 03:39:28 PM
And for you and your family if you ever find yourself on the receiving end of Portuguese justice.
In most places in the world the law is dictated by precedent. In Portugal are the McCanns unique in having the law tailored to disadvantage solely them in yet another unique aspect of Madeleine's case? In my opinion this verdict stinks to high heaven.
Title: Re: Supreme Court rules against the McCanns in damages case.
Post by: ShiningInLuz on February 08, 2017, 03:44:04 PM
Presumption of innocence is the principle that one is considered innocent unless proven guilty. Not considered a little bit dodgy, or hmmm...I bet they're not letting on the whole story or haha they failed to prove their innocence. Considered innocent until proven guilty The onus is not on anyone to prove their innocence, it should go without saying that in law one IS innocent until proven otherwise. It seems the PT Judiciary don't understand this concept.
I think the PT Judiciary understand Portuguese law better than the rest of us on the forum stuck together.
They ruled against the McCann claim. This does not make the McCanns guilty of anything, other than perhaps choosing a poor course of action.
Title: Re: Supreme Court rules against the McCanns in damages case.
Post by: xtina on February 08, 2017, 03:44:39 PM
Presumption of innocence is the principle that one is considered innocent unless proven guilty. Not considered a little bit dodgy, or hmmm...I bet they're not letting on the whole story or haha they failed to prove their innocence. Considered innocent until proven guilty The onus is not on anyone to prove their innocence, it should go without saying that in law one IS innocent until proven otherwise. It seems the PT Judiciary don't understand this concept.
that is in a court of law ............
where they have not been yet ....
according to them ....maddie was abducted ...
accordion to G A she wasn't
GA .....won the right to say maddie was not abducted ......tdah
Title: Re: Supreme Court rules against the McCanns in damages case.
Post by: jassi on February 08, 2017, 03:46:46 PM
I think the PT Judiciary understand Portuguese law better than the rest of us on the forum stuck together.
They ruled against the McCann claim. This does not make the McCanns guilty of anything, other than perhaps choosing a poor course of action.
Too right. Not only do we have armchair detectives, but we have armchair advocates as well . What a hoot @)(++(*
Title: Re: Supreme Court rules against the McCanns in damages case.
Post by: Alfie on February 08, 2017, 03:48:28 PM
The judgement (unless poorly translated) seems to suggest that Amaral was within his rights to express his opinion in his books because his right to freedom of expression trumped the McCanns' right to a not be libelled and in any case the McCanns had not been proven innocent, so there. What a load of cobblers.
Title: Re: Supreme Court rules against the McCanns in damages case.
Post by: ShiningInLuz on February 08, 2017, 03:50:10 PM
If a suspect is investigated and is released without charge and suspect status removed ... that person is innocent.
No, that person is entitled to be presumed innocent.
The McCanns are entitled to be presumed innocent, whether they actually are or not. The same goes for the other 5 arguidos, whether they are still arguidos or not.
And the same goes for anyone charged, until such time as a court of law tries them and finds them guilty.
Title: Re: Supreme Court rules against the McCanns in damages case.
Post by: jassi on February 08, 2017, 03:51:33 PM
The judgement (unless poorly translated) seems to suggest that Amaral was within his rights to express his opinion in his books because his right to freedom of expression trumped the McCanns' right to a not be libelled and in any case the McCanns had not been proven innocent, so there. What a load of cobblers.
Whatever your opinion might be, the Portuguese position is reality. McCanns lost and have to face the consequences.
Title: Re: Supreme Court rules against the McCanns in damages case.
Post by: Alfie on February 08, 2017, 03:51:41 PM
When's Isabel Duarte going to give us the benefit of her opinion on this judgement, if ever?
Title: Re: Supreme Court rules against the McCanns in damages case.
Post by: Alfie on February 08, 2017, 03:52:12 PM
Anyone wishing to forget would not come and post on this forum to be ridiculed and goaded on a daily basis, so I'm not sure who your post was aimed at.
Title: Re: Supreme Court rules against the McCanns in damages case.
Post by: Brietta on February 08, 2017, 03:56:01 PM
No, that person is entitled to be presumed innocent.
The McCanns are entitled to be presumed innocent, whether they actually are or not. The same goes for the other 5 arguidos, whether they are still arguidos or not.
And the same goes for anyone charged, until such time as a court of law tries them and finds them guilty.
The McCanns have never been charged with any offence. Although I believe your understanding of it is skewed ... what your post has indeed represented and described is ... the presumption of innocence as it is applicable to you ... to me ... and to Murat and the McCanns.
Title: Re: Supreme Court rules against the McCanns in damages case.
Post by: jassi on February 08, 2017, 03:56:35 PM
Anyone for whom the cap fits.
Title: Re: Supreme Court rules against the McCanns in damages case.
Post by: G-Unit on February 08, 2017, 03:56:46 PM
The McCanns claimed in their appeal that they were;
''absolutely innocent and cleared, by the archival dispatch of the crime-process''
The Supreme Court judges argue that the archival dispatch did not declare them to be cleared;
''let it not be said, also, that the appellants were cleared by the archival dispatch of the crime-process''
Consequently the McCanns couldn't claim that they were entitled to the presumption of innocence on that basis.
There may be other, better arguments as to why they are entitled to the presumption of innocence, but they chose to rely on the archival dispatch and it was dismissed as inadequate. They chose the wrong basis for their argument, that's all the judges are saying.
Title: Re: Supreme Court rules against the McCanns in damages case.
Post by: Alfie on February 08, 2017, 04:02:07 PM
The McCanns claimed in their appeal that they were;
''absolutely innocent and cleared, by the archival dispatch of the crime-process''
The Supreme Court judges argue that the archival dispatch did not declare them to be cleared;
''let it not be said, also, that the appellants were cleared by the archival dispatch of the crime-process''
Consequently the McCanns couldn't claim that they were entitled to the presumption of innocence on that basis.
There may be other, better arguments as to why they are entitled to the presumption of innocence, but they chose to rely on the archival dispatch and it was dismissed as inadequate. They chose the wrong basis for their argument, that's all the judges are saying.
They were entitled to the presumption of innocence FULL STOP regardless of what the McCanns may have presented as argument to reinforce this fact.
Title: Re: Supreme Court rules against the McCanns in damages case.
Post by: Alfie on February 08, 2017, 04:06:08 PM
What is the McCanns' status legally then if they are considered "not cleared" by the PT Judiciary?
Title: Re: Supreme Court rules against the McCanns in damages case.
Post by: Brietta on February 08, 2017, 04:16:17 PM
The judgement (unless poorly translated) seems to suggest that Amaral was within his rights to express his opinion in his books because his right to freedom of expression trumped the McCanns' right to a not be libelled and in any case the McCanns had not been proven innocent, so there. What a load of cobblers.
I think the way the judgement has been presented is spin ~ spin ~ and more propaganda to fuel the fires of future campaigns of vitriol against the McCanns.
Page 2
Starting the discussion in a logical and chronological order through book analysis, one immediately establishes that what is at stake is not a text with informative content.
In fact, one doesn't find in the book, reported in a stripped and simple way, the facts of the investigation that intended to clear the circumstances of the disappearance of the minor Madeleine McCann on May 3, 2007.
No added value is brought to the partial copy of the investigation that the Attorney General's Office did distribute for Social Communication after the closure of the investigation (paragraphs 65 and 66 of proven facts).
The book is the expression of an opinion, including the account of the conclusions that the author draws from the means of obtaining evidence produced in the investigation in order to formulate a thesis, an hypothesis of verifying of the facts. http://www.gerrymccannsblogs.co.uk/Supreme_Court_31_01_2017.htm
Smoke and mirrors and confirmation that in Portugal Amaral's opinion (don't know if it applies to anyone else) supersedes the McCann's right not to be libelled and their good name destroyed.
Title: Re: Supreme Court rules against the McCanns in damages case.
Post by: Brietta on February 08, 2017, 04:23:27 PM
The McCanns claimed in their appeal that they were;
''absolutely innocent and cleared, by the archival dispatch of the crime-process''
The Supreme Court judges argue that the archival dispatch did not declare them to be cleared;
''let it not be said, also, that the appellants were cleared by the archival dispatch of the crime-process''
Consequently the McCanns couldn't claim that they were entitled to the presumption of innocence on that basis.
There may be other, better arguments as to why they are entitled to the presumption of innocence, but they chose to rely on the archival dispatch and it was dismissed as inadequate. They chose the wrong basis for their argument, that's all the judges are saying.
They need to argue nothing. They are entitled to that presumption. They are innocent of any crime. All the propaganda in the world cannot change that.
Title: Re: Supreme Court rules against the McCanns in damages case.
Post by: jassi on February 08, 2017, 04:26:31 PM
GA .....won the right to say maddie was not abducted ......tdah
Worth bearing in mind he was not expressing any facts in his book ... only his opinion ... according to the judges. Nor was his opinion to be confused with fact.
Reminiscent of Lewis Carroll and Alice through the looking glass.
Title: Re: Supreme Court rules against the McCanns in damages case.
Post by: Brietta on February 08, 2017, 04:39:39 PM
I think conspiracy to pervert the course of justice is still a crime in Portugal.
Amaral might do well to remember that ... although like Tracy Ullman's "I am a National Treasure" seems he can do pretty much as he pleases for the time being.
Title: Re: Supreme Court rules against the McCanns in damages case.
Post by: Alice Purjorick on February 08, 2017, 04:50:13 PM
There is no such status. You cannot be a bit guilty or a bit innocent. Was Murat "fully excluded", because the wording in the archiving report was exactly the same for all three arguidos.
We will know the answers when a charge is brought as a consequence of which someone is judged guilty of a crime against MM in the eyes of the law. Working on the presumption this will all take place on Portuguese soil alot of people are going to become exceedingly old and bitter as time progresses. Well olderer and bitterer if this afternoon is owt to go by ............... @)(++(*
Title: Re: Supreme Court rules against the McCanns in damages case.
Post by: slartibartfast on February 08, 2017, 05:01:52 PM
The McCanns have never been charged with any offence. Although I believe your understanding of it is skewed ... what your post has indeed represented and described is ... the presumption of innocence as it is applicable to you ... to me ... and to Murat and the McCanns.
No, the whole point is that the McCanns were made Arguidos in the case which is definitely different from me. They cannot be regarded as Guilty or Innocent as it has never been taken to court.
Title: Re: Supreme Court rules against the McCanns in damages case.
Post by: xtina on February 08, 2017, 05:02:55 PM
Worth bearing in mind he was not expressing any facts in his book ... only his opinion ... according to the judges. Nor was his opinion to be confused with fact.
Reminiscent of Lewis Carroll and Alice through the looking glass.
page 10
Honour'
It should also refer to the content of the right to honour and the qualities or attributes that it welcomes.
The Judgement of the Supreme Court of May 27 2008 , quoted above, says : "The honour of the person translates therefore into the positive value that they infer themselves from the core of their being, that is the moral and ethic substrate of their existence, while the social consideration, the good name and the reputation translate into the judgment by others about every one. Correspondingly, the right to good name and to reputation is essentially for the person not be offended or injured in their honour, dignity or social consideration by imputation of others and to fight back against this offence and to obtain redress" [ idem ].
Capelo de Sousa teaches that "honour covers immediately the projection of the value of human dignity, which is innate, offered by nature equally to all human beings, unlikely to be lost by any man in any circumstance ( ... ). In a broad sense, it also includes the good name and reputation, as syntheses of social appreciation for determining qualities of uniqueness of each individual at the intellectual, moral, sexual, family, professional or political level" [The Personality General Law, 1995 , p. 303] .
Brito Correia added that honour also includes " the qualities acquired throughout life, by the individual's effort or otherwise and in various aspects (family, political, professional, scientific, literary, artistic, commercial, etc.). It covers inter alia, character, honesty, righteousness, loyalty, etc., corresponding to a sense of personal self-esteem. It is based on individual awareness of one's own worth : self-recognition and self-assessment". According to the same author, … -------------------------------------------------
GA certainly didn't lose his 'honour', in any circumstance, did he.............an thats a fact
Title: Re: Supreme Court rules against the McCanns in damages case.
Post by: Erngath on February 08, 2017, 05:03:29 PM
I would think the nearest equivalent in British law is the Scottish not proven.
That verdict is given after a trial when all the evidence has been presented, not before a trial when the person has the right to be presumed innocent.
Title: Re: Supreme Court rules against the McCanns in damages case.
Post by: slartibartfast on February 08, 2017, 05:06:22 PM
That verdict is given after a trial when all the evidence has been presented, not before a trial when the person has the right to be presumed innocent.
Presumption of innocence is a concept in legal actions.
Title: Re: Supreme Court rules against the McCanns in damages case.
Post by: Alice Purjorick on February 08, 2017, 05:19:19 PM
Worth bearing in mind he was not expressing any facts in his book ... only his opinion ... according to the judges. Nor was his opinion to be confused with fact.
Reminiscent of Lewis Carroll and Alice through the looking glass.
Christ! are you saying Sr Amaral was a junky? Not wishing to appear too picky Lewis Carroll called it "Through The Looking Glass". Rather apposite you should pick that one; does it not contain the Tweedle Dee and Tweedle Dum story?. Beware the jabberwock my son........................
Title: Re: Supreme Court rules against the McCanns in damages case.
Post by: Brietta on February 08, 2017, 05:39:22 PM
No, the whole point is that the McCanns were made Arguidos in the case which is definitely different from me. They cannot be regarded as Guilty or Innocent as it has never been taken to court.
They were declared arguidos negligently by law enforcement operatives without even basic grounding or understanding of forensics.
Title: Re: Supreme Court rules against the McCanns in damages case.
Post by: faithlilly on February 08, 2017, 05:56:07 PM
They were declared arguidos negligently by law enforcement operatives without even basic grounding or understanding of forensics.
Incorrect.
Over here, they would have been treated as potential suspects in an investigation of a missing child, where there has been no evidence of anyone else in the apartment.
Title: Re: Supreme Court rules against the McCanns in damages case.
Post by: pathfinder73 on February 08, 2017, 06:01:02 PM
David Payne was inside the apartment but no he wasn't according to Kate @)(++(*
Title: Re: Supreme Court rules against the McCanns in damages case.
Post by: Brietta on February 08, 2017, 06:03:50 PM
It should also refer to the content of the right to honour and the qualities or attributes that it welcomes.
The Judgement of the Supreme Court of May 27 2008 , quoted above, says : "The honour of the person translates therefore into the positive value that they infer themselves from the core of their being, that is the moral and ethic substrate of their existence, while the social consideration, the good name and the reputation translate into the judgment by others about every one. Correspondingly, the right to good name and to reputation is essentially for the person not be offended or injured in their honour, dignity or social consideration by imputation of others and to fight back against this offence and to obtain redress" [ idem ].
Capelo de Sousa teaches that "honour covers immediately the projection of the value of human dignity, which is innate, offered by nature equally to all human beings, unlikely to be lost by any man in any circumstance ( ... ). In a broad sense, it also includes the good name and reputation, as syntheses of social appreciation for determining qualities of uniqueness of each individual at the intellectual, moral, sexual, family, professional or political level" [The Personality General Law, 1995 , p. 303] .
Brito Correia added that honour also includes " the qualities acquired throughout life, by the individual's effort or otherwise and in various aspects (family, political, professional, scientific, literary, artistic, commercial, etc.). It covers inter alia, character, honesty, righteousness, loyalty, etc., corresponding to a sense of personal self-esteem. It is based on individual awareness of one's own worth : self-recognition and self-assessment". According to the same author, … -------------------------------------------------
GA certainly didn't lose his 'honour', in any circumstance, did he.............an thats a fact
At the moment I've not bothered to progress beyond page two. Life is far too short to be wasted on misinformed tittle tattle. No doubt I may continue reading once the paint on the wall has dried properly ... watching that was far more interesting than reading medieval ramblings with no place at all in the nineteenth century let alone the twenty first.
Do forgive me, on that basis I have not bothered to read your post either ... it is really all a monumental irrelevance to furthering Madeleine McCann's case ... and quite frankly I'm bored with the renewed mendacity directed at her parents despite the fact Amaral has won his right to freedom of speech.
The book had no basis in fact ... Amaral has won his right to free speech ... the McCanns have had their right not to suffer character assassination and defamation removed.
The maxim that with rights comes responsibility seems to have been overlooked somewhat.
Title: Re: Supreme Court rules against the McCanns in damages case.
Post by: stephen25000 on February 08, 2017, 06:05:15 PM
At the moment I've not bothered to progress beyond page two. Life is far too short to be wasted on misinformed tittle tattle. No doubt I may continue reading once the paint on the wall has dried properly ... watching that was far more interesting than reading medieval ramblings with no place at all in the nineteenth century let alone the twenty first.
Do forgive me, on that basis I have not bothered to read your post either ... it is really all a monumental irrelevance to furthering Madeleine McCann's case ... and quite frankly I'm bored with the renewed mendacity directed at her parents despite the fact Amaral has won his right to freedom of speech.
The book had no basis in fact ... Amaral has won his right to free speech ... the McCanns have had their right not to suffer character assassination and defamation removed.
The maxim that with rights comes responsibility seems to have been overlooked somewhat.
You seem to have omitted Brietta, that the crime, if any, of Mafeleine's disappearance, remains undetermined and unknown.
The McCann's initiated events in this case, so above all else they bear responsibility for their actions.
No waxing lyrical will change that.
Title: Re: Supreme Court rules against the McCanns in damages case.
Post by: faithlilly on February 08, 2017, 06:14:10 PM
Is it just me or have th supporters all but forgotten that this case was supposed to be about stopping the harm the book was doing to the search for Madeleine ? So far the concern shown is for her parent's reputation alone.
Title: Re: Supreme Court rules against the McCanns in damages case.
Post by: Alfie on February 08, 2017, 06:17:25 PM
No, the whole point is that the McCanns were made Arguidos in the case which is definitely different from me. They cannot be regarded as Guilty or Innocent as it has never been taken to court.
Insanity.
Title: Re: Supreme Court rules against the McCanns in damages case.
Post by: Alfie on February 08, 2017, 06:18:12 PM
At the moment I've not bothered to progress beyond page two. Life is far too short to be wasted on misinformed tittle tattle. No doubt I may continue reading once the paint on the wall has dried properly ... watching that was far more interesting than reading medieval ramblings with no place at all in the nineteenth century let alone the twenty first.
Do forgive me, on that basis I have not bothered to read your post either ... it is really all a monumental irrelevance to furthering Madeleine McCann's case ... and quite frankly I'm bored with the renewed mendacity directed at her parents despite the fact Amaral has won his right to freedom of speech.
The book had no basis in fact ... Amaral has won his right to free speech ... the McCanns have had their right not to suffer character assassination and defamation removed.
The maxim that with rights comes responsibility seems to have been overlooked somewhat.
1 Go tell it to the marines. 2 Some on here should be cognisant of that maxim, furthermore those who are there to correct them should not be derelict in their duties.
Title: Re: Supreme Court rules against the McCanns in damages case.
Post by: Robittybob1 on February 08, 2017, 07:05:37 PM
The same applies in Portugal. The McCanns were not required to prove their innocence. What was publicised was the erroneous belief that releasing someone from arguido status 'proved' them innocent. It didn't.
I think that can be accepted but it doesn't prove them guilty either.
Title: Re: Supreme Court rules against the McCanns in damages case.
Post by: Alfie on February 08, 2017, 07:08:22 PM
Is it just me or have th supporters all but forgotten that this case was supposed to be about stopping the harm the book was doing to the search for Madeleine ? So far the concern shown is for her parent's reputation alone.
No we haven't forgotten, but currently we're engaged in a discussion about the Supreme Court ruling which has decided that the McCanns' can't be considered innocent because years ago they were made arguidos and the case shelved for lack of evidence. I for one am trying to understand what their current status is, if they haven't been cleared, they can't be considered innocent, but they haven't been arguidos for 9 years. They seem to be in some sort of legal purgatory which has yet to be given a proper definition in law.
Title: Re: Supreme Court rules against the McCanns in damages case.
Post by: jassi on February 08, 2017, 07:11:22 PM
I think that can be accepted but it doesn't prove them guilty either.
Has anyone said it did?
Title: Re: Supreme Court rules against the McCanns in damages case.
Post by: Alfie on February 08, 2017, 07:20:20 PM
An interesting comment from a Portuguese commentator, back in 2007 - says it all really:
Joao Marques dos Santos of Correio da Manha. "The theory of the presumption of innocence for an arguido is a joke. When someone is declared an arguido, the exact opposite occurs. That person, whether innocent or not, is considered by investigators to be potentially guilty. The effects are devastating and irreparable."
An interesting comment from a Portuguese commentator, back in 2007 - says it all really:
Joao Marques dos Santos of Correio da Manha. "The theory of the presumption of innocence for an arguido is a joke. When someone is declared an arguido, the exact opposite occurs. That person, whether innocent or not, is considered by investigators to be potentially guilty. The effects are devastating and irreparable."
Presumption of innocence is the principle that one is considered innocent unless proven guilty. Not considered a little bit dodgy, or hmmm...I bet they're not letting on the whole story or haha they failed to prove their innocence. Considered innocent until proven guilty The onus is not on anyone to prove their innocence, it should go without saying that in law one IS innocent until proven otherwise. It seems the PT Judiciary don't understand this concept.
If someone goes missing, everyone is presumed innocent, for there may have been no crime committed. But as time goes on there will be some under suspicion, even though there may be insufficient evidence to take the case to court. In these cases the presumption of innocence seems to be lost for the ones under suspicion. Can the ones under suspicion then claim damages? I suppose it depends on what is claimed against those under suspicion.
Title: Re: Supreme Court rules against the McCanns in damages case.
Post by: stephen25000 on February 08, 2017, 07:29:34 PM
As a reminder, though I am sure this has done before, the status of arguida can be reactivated for up to 20 years after the initial declaration.
Title: Re: Supreme Court rules against the McCanns in damages case.
Post by: Robittybob1 on February 08, 2017, 07:30:01 PM
I think the PT Judiciary understand Portuguese law better than the rest of us on the forum stuck together.
They ruled against the McCann claim. This does not make the McCanns guilty of anything, other than perhaps choosing a poor course of action.
The poor course of action: Defending their rights!
Title: Re: Supreme Court rules against the McCanns in damages case.
Post by: Alice Purjorick on February 08, 2017, 07:32:19 PM
I am sure the plaintiffs, the defendants, the courts, two sets of police and appropriate advogados are well aware of the full SP. No one else need know. It might make a nice tale in the MSM in the fullness of time unless something meatier crops up.
Title: Re: Supreme Court rules against the McCanns in damages case.
Post by: Robittybob1 on February 08, 2017, 07:34:06 PM
No, that person is entitled to be presumed innocent.
The McCanns are entitled to be presumed innocent, whether they actually are or not. The same goes for the other 5 arguidos, whether they are still arguidos or not.
And the same goes for anyone charged, until such time as a court of law tries them and finds them guilty.
And even then they have the right of appeal, right up to the Privy Council. But from the time the court declares them guilty, they can be reported that they are guilty of the crime without fear of libel.
Title: Re: Supreme Court rules against the McCanns in damages case.
Post by: stephen25000 on February 08, 2017, 07:38:03 PM
Yes I agree but it seems not to be the case in Portugal. Is one allowed to say thank goodness for our system of justice which may have its faults but would never result in this mess.......................
Title: Re: Supreme Court rules against the McCanns in damages case.
Post by: Robittybob1 on February 08, 2017, 07:56:23 PM
I was just making a line in the sand "I think that can be accepted (that the McCanns are not cleared) but it doesn't prove them guilty either". I'm not pointing the finger at anyone as yet.
Title: Re: Supreme Court rules against the McCanns in damages case.
Post by: Brietta on February 08, 2017, 07:57:36 PM
You seem to have omitted Brietta, that the crime, if any, of Mafeleine's disappearance, remains undetermined and unknown.
The McCann's initiated events in this case, so above all else they bear responsibility for their actions.
No waxing lyrical will change that.
The judges did mention that Amaral's honour and the freedom of speech to promulgate his theory is the paramount issue here. His theory in which he put the horse before the cart seems to have been more important to him than the protocol of keeping all options open for Madeleine. Including the one that she is alive..
The lack of knowledge regarding Madeleine might very well have had something to do with the fact that on his watch the mysterious disappearance of little girls was becoming endemic.
Your criticism is not one for the victims of the crime. They were not responsible for determining operational strategy, that is the police job therefore the failure you criticise is theirs.
Title: Re: Supreme Court rules against the McCanns in damages case.
Post by: Alice Purjorick on February 08, 2017, 08:00:46 PM
Dreadful state of affairs for anyone to have to live with. Strange system of justice.
70% of the countries in the world do not have a system based on English Common Law. It is a weird world we live in that's for sure. They should count themselves lucky it was Portugal and not Sweden or the Czech Pub. If you are squeamish it is best not go beyond the soggy bit at Dover without mummy as it can be frightening. Places filled with nasty foreigners who don't speak English all waiting to...........well they had dictatorships half a century ago and so on.
Title: Re: Supreme Court rules against the McCanns in damages case.
Post by: Robittybob1 on February 08, 2017, 08:03:34 PM
The judges did mention that Amaral's honour and the freedom of speech to promulgate his theory is the paramount issue here. His theory in which he put the horse before the cart seems to have been more important to him than the protocol of keeping all options open for Madeleine. Including the one that she is alive..
The lack of knowledge regarding Madeleine might very well have had something to do with the fact that on his watch the mysterious disappearance of little girls was becoming endemic.
Your criticism is not one for the victims of the crime. They were not responsible for determining operational strategy, that is the police job therefore the failure you criticise is theirs.
'The lack of knowledge regarding Madeleine might very well have had something to do with the fact that on his watch the mysterious disappearance of little girls was becoming endemic.'
What a load of tosh.
Perhaps you can provide a citation for that.
Then make a comparison, of how many little girls disappeared in this country during the same period.
Blaming Amaral for that is beyond ridicule.
Title: Re: Supreme Court rules against the McCanns in damages case.
Post by: Robittybob1 on February 08, 2017, 08:05:23 PM
The poor course of action: Defending their rights!
The courts have considered their claim and the verdict is that their rights were not violated. No matter what they and others think, that verdict will remain.
Title: Re: Supreme Court rules against the McCanns in damages case.
Post by: Erngath on February 08, 2017, 08:10:22 PM
70% of the countries in the world do not have a system based on English Common Law. It is a weird world we live in that's for sure. They should count themselves lucky it was Portugal and not Sweden or the Czech Pub. If you are squeamish it is best not go beyond the soggy bit at Dover without mummy as it can be frightening. Places filled with nasty foreigners who don't speak English all waiting to...........well they had dictatorships half a century ago and so on.
Never go near Dover.............too many "nasty foreigners" there. Mummy has been dead for eighteen years.
Title: Re: Supreme Court rules against the McCanns in damages case.
Post by: slartibartfast on February 08, 2017, 08:10:49 PM
The courts have considered their claim and the verdict is that their rights were not violated. No matter what they and others think, that verdict will remain.
But we do have the right to debate their verdict and even consider the possibility that it is an unjust verdict.
Title: Re: Supreme Court rules against the McCanns in damages case.
Post by: Brietta on February 08, 2017, 08:13:56 PM
An interesting comment from a Portuguese commentator, back in 2007 - says it all really:
Joao Marques dos Santos of Correio da Manha. "The theory of the presumption of innocence for an arguido is a joke. When someone is declared an arguido, the exact opposite occurs. That person, whether innocent or not, is considered by investigators to be potentially guilty. The effects are devastating and irreparable."
In my opinion that is exactly why the McCanns were declared arguidos days prior to the change in the law which would have required evidence for that to happen.
Long term ... it all worked out very well for Amaral.
Portuguese police 'rushed to make McCanns suspects to avoid new law'
Police waged a smear campaign against Kate and Gerry McCann, deliberately rushing to make them suspects just days before a new law made it impossible without firm evidence against the couple, it was claimed. http://www.standard.co.uk/news/portuguese-police-rushed-to-make-mccanns-suspects-to-avoid-new-law-6623136.html
Title: Re: Supreme Court rules against the McCanns in damages case.
Post by: Robittybob1 on February 08, 2017, 08:17:49 PM
The courts have considered their claim and the verdict is that their rights were not violated. No matter what they and others think, that verdict will remain.
True but at the time they were defending their rights. They felt Amaral was expressing his findings as fact. OK the claims are now viewed as "opinion", but that to a lot of us is a strange judgement.
Title: Re: Supreme Court rules against the McCanns in damages case.
Post by: jassi on February 08, 2017, 08:18:02 PM
But we do have the right to debate their verdict and even consider the possibility that it is an unjust verdict.
As it is likely that you won't understand the intricacies of Portuguese law you cannot possible make a valid comment as you will be comparing it with UK law.
Title: Re: Supreme Court rules against the McCanns in damages case.
Post by: Robittybob1 on February 08, 2017, 08:19:52 PM
As it is likely that you won't understand the intricacies of Portuguese law you cannot possible make a valid comment as you will be comparing it with UK law.
I don't understand the intricacies of the law in many countries but that does not preclude me making a judgement on the outcome of any legal proceeding if the outcome seems unjust.
Title: Re: Supreme Court rules against the McCanns in damages case.
Post by: Robittybob1 on February 08, 2017, 08:24:46 PM
I don't understand the intricacies of the law in many countries but that does not preclude me making a judgement on the outcome of any legal proceeding if the outcome seems unjust.
Yes but you are only considering unjust compared with another system. Apples and pear.
Title: Re: Supreme Court rules against the McCanns in damages case.
Post by: Robittybob1 on February 08, 2017, 08:29:27 PM
As it is likely that you won't understand the intricacies of Portuguese law you cannot possible make a valid comment as you will be comparing it with UK law.
So if in Afghanistan a married rape victim is found guilty of unlawful sexual intercourse and ordered by law to be buried up to her neck and have stones thrown at her head, then I can't possibly make a valid comment about it as I don't know the intricacies of their law and will be comparing it with UK law. In other words, shut up and don't express an opinion. Well...no, sorry.
Title: Re: Supreme Court rules against the McCanns in damages case.
Post by: stephen25000 on February 08, 2017, 08:32:45 PM
Yes but you are only considering unjust compared with another system. Apples and pear.
So you can never make a comparison between two justice systems? Whether one is more just than others. Or is justice like beauty, only in the eye of the beholder?
Title: Re: Supreme Court rules against the McCanns in damages case.
Post by: Erngath on February 08, 2017, 08:35:35 PM
So if in Afghanistan a married rape victim is found guilty of unlawful sexual intercourse and ordered by law to be buried up to her neck and have stones thrown at her head, then I can't possibly make a valid comment about it as I don't know the intricacies of their law and will be comparing it with UK law. In other words, shut up and don't express an opinion. Well...no, sorry.
Quite!!
Title: Re: Supreme Court rules against the McCanns in damages case.
Post by: Mr Gray on February 08, 2017, 08:36:17 PM
So if in Afghanistan a married rape victim is found guilty of unlawful sexual intercourse and ordered by law to be buried up to her neck and have stones thrown at her head, then I can't possibly make a valid comment about it as I don't know the intricacies of their law and will be comparing it with UK law. In other words, shut up and don't express an opinion. Well...no, sorry.
All you can really say is that by western standards it is wrong. By Afghan standards it is clearly OK
Title: Re: Supreme Court rules against the McCanns in damages case.
Post by: Erngath on February 08, 2017, 08:42:02 PM
In my opinion that is exactly why the McCanns were declared arguidos days prior to the change in the law which would have required evidence for that to happen.
Long term ... it all worked out very well for Amaral.
Portuguese police 'rushed to make McCanns suspects to avoid new law'
Police waged a smear campaign against Kate and Gerry McCann, deliberately rushing to make them suspects just days before a new law made it impossible without firm evidence against the couple, it was claimed. http://www.standard.co.uk/news/portuguese-police-rushed-to-make-mccanns-suspects-to-avoid-new-law-6623136.html
They were suspects in August.
Wednesday 8 August 2007
João Carlos returned our car at lunchtime (albeit with a piece missing from the boot). He said that Neves and Encarnação were ready to see us later that afternoon. Thank goodness! Finally someone was going to explain to us exactly what was happening. João told us he would come and meet us at 3pm near the police station, to avoid the media – we wouldn’t be going to the British Consulate this time. On our way to Portimão we dropped Auntie Janet, Sean and Amelie at the home of Susan and Haynes Hubbard.
If we’d wondered about the change of venue for our regular informal meeting, the reason for it soon became clear: this wasn’t our regular informal meeting. We were taken to an upstairs room at the police station where we were greeted by Luís Neves and Guilhermino Encarnação. Our interpreter this time was a police officer, not Proconsul Angela Morado, as was usually the case. The whole demeanour of Neves and Encarnação was different. They looked serious and cold.
There had been a ‘shift’ in the investigation, they said. They had always been optimistic that Madeleine was alive, but now things had changed. Almost instantaneously I could feel my breathing pattern altering and that familiar constriction in my throat. Gerry asked if any evidence had come to light to suggest that Madeleine was dead but they wouldn’t reply. There was a lot of frowning going on which, combined with the language barrier, made it less obvious that they weren’t answering us. Gerry was then asked to leave the room. Now the sirens in my head were deafening. I was on my own and afraid. Please God, let my Madeleine be OK.
Tell us about that night, they said. Tell us everything that happened after the children went to bed. I gave them every detail I could remember, as I had before, but this time they responded by just staring at me and shaking their heads. I was reeling with confusion, disbelief and panic. What the hell was going on? Evidently not satisfied with my account, they pressed me. Was there anything else I wanted to add? Anything else unusual that had occurred that night? Of course there wasn’t. If there had been I would have told them on 3 May. I’d recounted absolutely everything and anything – more than they wanted or needed to know, probably, just in case some triviality I recalled might be significant. How could they think I would hold something back that might help my daughter? Why were they asking me this? Why?
Neves stated bluntly that they didn’t believe my version of events. It ‘didn’t fit’ with what they knew. Didn’t fit? What did they know? I was sobbing now, well past the stage of silent tears and stifled sniffs. I began to wail hysterically, drawing breath in desperate gasps.
Why did I think Madeleine had been alive when she was taken from the apartment? they persisted. I explained between sobs that there had been nothing to suggest otherwise; no indication that she might have come to harm. Had I ever considered that she may be dead? Yes, of course. Early on that was all I thought, all the time: that some paedophile had grabbed her, abused her and later killed her. Then I’d begun to wonder if she was being held by pornographers, I told them, or had been taken for someone who wanted a child.
I was becoming more and more distressed and more and more scared. I wanted Gerry. Still they pushed me. They proposed that when I’d put Madeleine to bed that night, it wasn’t actually the last time I’d seen her. But it was. It was! I felt I was being bullied, and I suppose I was. I assume these tactics were deliberate: knock her off balance by telling her that her daughter is dead and get her to confess. Because I was in no doubt now that they were trying to make me say I’d killed Madeleine or knew what had happened to her. I might be naive but I’m not stupid.
On and on it went. They tried to convince me I’d had a blackout – a ‘loss of memory episode’, I think they called it. My denials, answers and pleas fell on deaf ears. This was their theory and they wanted to shoehorn me into it, end of story. At last they seemed to decide that the interview was over. They told me I could ring them any time, day or night, to give them the information they were waiting for.
I was allowed to spend a couple of minutes with Gerry, but I don’t think he was able to get much sense out of me. Then it was his turn to be interrogated. He managed to remain a little calmer than I had but he was still visibly upset and shaken afterwards. He gave the police his account of the events of 3 May and the reasons why he didn’t believe Madeleine had been killed in the apartment. Through his tears he pleaded with the two men: ‘Do you have evidence that Madeleine is dead? We’re her parents. You have to tell us.’
‘It’s coming,’ Neves told him. ‘It’s coming!’
Outside the room, I was praying – begging prayers. I was beginning to come unstuck. But if I thought the police had finished with me, I was mistaken. Before long I was ordered back into the room to join Gerry for round three.
Once again Gerry wanted to know if the case had now become a murder inquiry. The answer was indirect: ‘You can probably guess that from our lack of response.’ In a slightly threatening manner, Luís asked why I wasn’t looking him straight in the eye. There was no reason, other than that I was incapable of looking at anyone properly: my own eyes were so swollen and sore that I was struggling to keep them from closing completely. Finally, Gerry tried to establish when – and if – we would be having another meeting with them. ‘The next time we meet it will be across the table.’ The message behind this rather Delphic statement was clear: there would be no more informal meetings.
Title: Re: Supreme Court rules against the McCanns in damages case.
Post by: jassi on February 08, 2017, 08:42:50 PM
If only @)(++(*
Title: Re: Supreme Court rules against the McCanns in damages case.
Post by: Erngath on February 08, 2017, 08:44:24 PM
No we haven't forgotten, but currently we're engaged in a discussion about the Supreme Court ruling which has decided that the McCanns' can't be considered innocent because years ago they were made arguidos and the case shelved for lack of evidence. I for one am trying to understand what their current status is, if they haven't been cleared, they can't be considered innocent, but they haven't been arguidos for 9 years. They seem to be in some sort of legal purgatory which has yet to be given a proper definition in law.
You haven't forgotten? That's not the impression I'm getting. Not one word about the ruling having a detrimental effect on the search for the child, just the ongoing search for her parent's good name.
Title: Re: Supreme Court rules against the McCanns in damages case.
Post by: Erngath on February 08, 2017, 08:56:09 PM
You haven't forgotten? That's not the impression I'm getting. Not one word about the ruling having a detrimental effect on the search for the child, just the ongoing search for her parent's good name.
Do you know something? I'm really not interested in the impression you're getting. We've discussed the issue of the detrimental effect we believe the book had on the search for Madeleine at length before. We are currently discussing the disregard for the presumption of innocence as demonstrated by the Supreme Court. You seem to have a problem with this, one can't imagine why.
Title: Re: Supreme Court rules against the McCanns in damages case.
Post by: jassi on February 08, 2017, 09:12:12 PM
P Who has done the translations that we are reading on the internet and have these translations been verified as being correct.
How would you do that ? I think the way it works is that if you disagree with a portion of translation you provide an alternative and prove it is better than the original.
Title: Re: Supreme Court rules against the McCanns in damages case.
Post by: Erngath on February 08, 2017, 09:15:34 PM
How would you do that ? I think the way it works is that if you disagree with a portion of translation you provide an alternative and prove it is better than the original.
So much ado about translations that no one can be sure are correct. &%+((£
Title: Re: Supreme Court rules against the McCanns in damages case.
Post by: jassi on February 08, 2017, 09:19:06 PM
That's the way it is. If you can't demonstrate a fault, then the original translation stands.
I believe the forum has some Portuguese readers who can check the text
Title: Re: Supreme Court rules against the McCanns in damages case.
Post by: G-Unit on February 08, 2017, 09:31:19 PM
Do you know something? I'm really not interested in the impression you're getting. We've discussed the issue of the detrimental effect we believe the book had on the search for Madeleine at length before. We are currently discussing the disregard for the presumption of innocence as demonstrated by the Supreme Court. You seem to have a problem with this, one can't imagine why.
Alleged. I have read what they said and I remain unconvinced that they demonstrated a disregard for the presumption of innocence.
Title: Re: Supreme Court rules against the McCanns in damages case.
Post by: jassi on February 08, 2017, 09:38:52 PM
Alleged. I have read what they said and I remain unconvinced that they demonstrated a disregard for the presumption of innocence.
quite a few people on this forum seem to agree with the Supreme Court, claiming the McCanns cannot be considered either guilty or innocent. What do you think?
Title: Re: Supreme Court rules against the McCanns in damages case.
Post by: faithlilly on February 08, 2017, 09:47:30 PM
Do you know something? I'm really not interested in the impression you're getting. We've discussed the issue of the detrimental effect we believe the book had on the search for Madeleine at length before. We are currently discussing the disregard for the presumption of innocence as demonstrated by the Supreme Court. You seem to have a problem with this, one can't imagine why.
If you're not interested in my opinion, don't read my posts. Simple.
Title: Re: Supreme Court rules against the McCanns in damages case.
Post by: Alfie on February 08, 2017, 09:49:49 PM
quite a few people on this forum seem to agree with the Supreme Court, claiming the McCanns cannot be considered either guilty or innocent. What do you think?
I have seen no opinion on the status of the McCanns by the SC judges. They said the archiving dispatch did not clear them, despite their claim that it did. Therefore arguments using that 'fact' as their basis were not valid.
Title: Re: Supreme Court rules against the McCanns in damages case.
Post by: Erngath on February 08, 2017, 10:14:15 PM
Do you ever get upset about people you do not know? Reading a sad story or film? Reading about a sad piece of news or watching something sad on the television. Do you ever feel like something is unfair and you get upset about it. For me this is the case with Madeleine. And i am normal.
Title: Re: Supreme Court rules against the McCanns in damages case.
Post by: Robittybob1 on February 08, 2017, 10:25:05 PM
quite a few people on this forum seem to agree with the Supreme Court, claiming the McCanns cannot be considered either guilty or innocent. What do you think?
How can we for we don't know what happened.
Title: Re: Supreme Court rules against the McCanns in damages case.
Post by: stephen25000 on February 08, 2017, 10:35:56 PM
In the 'Sun'.
'Mccann's not in the Clear'.
Title: Re: Supreme Court rules against the McCanns in damages case.
Post by: G-Unit on February 08, 2017, 10:39:07 PM
Do you ever get upset about people you do not know? Reading a sad story or film? Reading about a sad piece of news or watching something sad on the television. Do you ever feel like something is unfair and you get upset about it. For me this is the case with Madeleine. And i am normal.
I also feel upset on Madeleine's behalf. It doesn't follow that I have to be upset on her parent's behalf though.
Title: Re: Supreme Court rules against the McCanns in damages case.
Post by: Erngath on February 08, 2017, 10:43:59 PM
KATE and Gerry McCann face fresh heartache after judges said they had not been cleared over daughter Madeleine’s disappearance.
Portugal’s Supreme Court has said the removal of their “arguido” — or formal suspect — status should not be “equated to proof of innocence”. Kate and Gerry McCann PA:Press Association 5 The removal of Kate and Gerry McCann’s ‘formal suspect’ status does not mean they are innocent in their daughter’s disappearance, judges have said
The country’s most senior judges claimed the investigation into them was only shelved in 2008 because of a lack of evidence.
And they said there were “serious concerns” over the theory that Madeleine had been abducted from their Ocean Club apartment in Praia da Luz, in May 2007.
The comments were made in the Supreme Court’s 76-page dossier after handing victory to ex-detective Goncalo Amaral in an ongoing libel case last week. Madeleine McCann PA:Press Association 5 Portugal’s top judges cast doubt over Madeleine McCann’s disappearance, claiming there are ‘serious concerns’ with abduction theory
The McCanns got Amaral’s book The Truth of the Lie banned and sued for libel after he alleged they faked Madeleine’s abduction to cover up the then three-year-old’s death.
But he is writing a second book about Madeleine’s disappearance — and the McCanns have said they will sue again if it is published in Britain.
Kate and Gerry, both 48, were made arguidos in September 2007. But their status was lifted in July 2008 when Portuguese police archived the investigation. Kate and Gerry McCann PA:Press Association 5 The McCanns had The Truth of the Lie book banned after it alleged they faked their daughter’s abduction to cover up her death related stories
Madeleine McCann disappeared in Portugal in 2007 whilst on holiday with her family aged three
The Supreme Court is Portugal’s highest court but has no criminal authority. It published its ruling yesterday.
Judges added their job was not to decide if the McCanns bore any criminal responsibility over Madeleine’s disappearance. Kate and Gerry McCann Getty Images 5 Portugal’s judges claimed investigation into Kate and Gerry McCann was only shelved in 2008 due to a lack of evidence
And they said it would be wrong to draw any inferences about the couple’s guilt or innocence from their ruling.
Kate and Gerry, of Rothley, Leics, did not want to respond to the judges’ findings last night.
A spokesman said: “It’s entirely a matter for their lawyers.” Lisa Riley recalls visit to Praia Da Luz to investigate Madeleine McCann's disappearance
soo all these years supporters were wrong???
Title: Re: Supreme Court rules against the McCanns in damages case.
Post by: Mr Gray on February 09, 2017, 01:34:21 AM
its all a dogs dinner and I'm not surprised the McCanns do not wish to comment.
Barry George has had two trials...has he been cleared...has he been proved innocent. The word cleared does not have a strict legal definition Proof has three definitions
That's why I can say.....There is proof of Barry Georges innocence and I can say his innocence has not been proved
Title: Re: Supreme Court rules against the McCanns in damages case.
Post by: carlymichelle on February 09, 2017, 01:43:11 AM
its all a dogs dinner and I'm not surprised the McCanns do not wish to comment.
Barry George has had two trials...has he been cleared...has he been proved innocent. The word cleared does not have a strict legal definition Proof has three definitions
That's why I can say.....There is proof of Barry Georges innocence and I can say his innocence has not been proved
well the uk media is reporting it do you realise how huge that is?? they wouldnt of been able to print it if it wasnt true so you can believe what you like
Title: Re: Supreme Court rules against the McCanns in damages case.
Post by: Mr Gray on February 09, 2017, 02:12:45 AM
perhaps because the public aren't too bright. .......the way things are going their could be another libel action against uk papers
The family of ben Needham have never been cleared and they were suspects originally
As I read it, even though the PT Supreme Court is saying the McCanns are not cleared they are not saying anything about whether they are innocent or guilty. The two issues are separate.
Title: Re: Supreme Court rules against the McCanns in damages case.
Post by: G-Unit on February 09, 2017, 06:34:54 AM
As I read it, even though the PT Supreme Court is saying the McCanns are not cleared they are not saying anything about whether they are innocent or guilty. The two issues are separate.
Not cleared by the archiving dispatch is what they said. The McCanns said it cleared them but it didn't. As you say, they made no comment about the McCann's guilt ot innocence. How could they? The crime wasn't able to be identified, let alone who committed it.
Title: Re: Supreme Court rules against the McCanns in damages case.
Post by: carlymichelle on February 09, 2017, 06:38:27 AM
Not cleared by the archiving dispatch is what they said. The McCanns said it cleared them but it didn't. As you say, they made no comment about the McCann's guilt ot innocence. How could they? The crime wasn't able to be identified, let alone who committed it.
so in other words the mcanns are still suspects
Title: Re: Supreme Court rules against the McCanns in damages case.
Post by: G-Unit on February 09, 2017, 07:16:19 AM
If the McCanns were ever arrested and tried they would benefit from the presumption of innocence just like any other person put on trial.
The defendants in the Stephen Lawrence case never lost that right before the law. Even so, on 14 February 1997, the Daily Mail newspaper labelled all five suspects "murderers". The headline read, "Murderers: The Mail accuses these men of killing. If we are wrong, let them sue us."
I expect the McCanns would sue if a newspaper printed something like that about them, but they can't sue them for saying the McCanns weren't cleared by the archiving dispatch because they weren't. Just like the McCanns, those newspapers who reported them cleared by the archiving dispatch got it wrong.
Title: Re: Supreme Court rules against the McCanns in damages case.
Post by: carlymichelle on February 09, 2017, 07:26:49 AM
If the McCanns were ever arrested and tried they would benefit from the presumption of innocence just like any other person put on trial.
The defendants in the Stephen Lawrence case never lost that right before the law. Even so, on 14 February 1997, the Daily Mail newspaper labelled all five suspects "murderers". The headline read, "Murderers: The Mail accuses these men of killing. If we are wrong, let them sue us."
I expect the McCanns would sue if a newspaper printed something like that about them, but they can't sue them for saying the McCanns weren't cleared by the archiving dispatch because they weren't. Just like the McCanns, those newspapers who reported them cleared by the archiving dispatch got it wrong.
right so the portugese consider the mcanns still suspects
Title: Re: Supreme Court rules against the McCanns in damages case.
Post by: stephen25000 on February 09, 2017, 07:29:20 AM
................for what is no one blaming the McCann's ?
i was just reporting on what the daily mail said they said the mcanns were NOT cleard by portugese of their daughters death!!!!!!! im still shocked ?{)(**
Title: Re: Supreme Court rules against the McCanns in damages case.
Post by: Robittybob1 on February 09, 2017, 08:14:46 AM
i was just reporting on what the daily mail said they said the mcanns were NOT cleard by portugese of their daughters death!!!!!!! im still shocked ?{)(**
But they also state that no one knows what happened to Madeleine. Seems contradictory so far.
Title: Re: Supreme Court rules against the McCanns in damages case.
Post by: slartibartfast on February 09, 2017, 08:17:05 AM
Don't know sorry ask Carli " i never thought it see the day that the daily mail said death and blame the mccanns!!!" But they also state that no one knows what happened to Madeleine. Seems contradictory so far.
Please see other thread.
Title: Re: Supreme Court rules against the McCanns in damages case.
Post by: xtina on February 09, 2017, 08:35:38 AM
At the moment I've not bothered to progress beyond page two. Life is far too short to be wasted on misinformed tittle tattle. No doubt I may continue reading once the paint on the wall has dried properly ... watching that was far more interesting than reading medieval ramblings with no place at all in the nineteenth century let alone the twenty first.
Do forgive me, on that basis I have not bothered to read your post either ... it is really all a monumental irrelevance to furthering Madeleine McCann's case ... and quite frankly I'm bored with the renewed mendacity directed at her parents despite the fact Amaral has won his right to freedom of speech.
The book had no basis in fact ... Amaral has won his right to free speech ... the McCanns have had their right not to suffer character assassination and defamation removed.
The maxim that with rights comes responsibility seems to have been overlooked somewhat.
no problem.......i don't read all yours either ...usually far too long...
At the moment I've not bothered to progress beyond page two. Life is far too short to be wasted on misinformed tittle tattle.
Oh lol...........yet you spend half your life on here ....and how is it tittle tattle
as you see now .........the UK news papers are reporting .....
i always thought ........once they get there teeth into something ..that won't bite them back ...
they will be down on the mccs like a avalanche
Title: Re: Supreme Court rules against the McCanns in damages case.
Post by: Robittybob1 on February 09, 2017, 08:38:13 AM
Title: Re: Supreme Court rules against the McCanns in damages case.
Post by: G-Unit on February 09, 2017, 08:53:23 AM
Robert Murat's lawyer seemed well aware of the nuances attached to the archiving process. When asked if they would welcome the archiving decision he said;
“Yes, we will, but it depends on the way it’s going to be dropped.
“If it’s going to be dropped because there’s not enough evidence connecting my client to this case or if it’s going to be dropped because Robert hasn’t got any involvement in this case.
“Only the second way will make us happy. BBC News July 2008 http://madeleinemccann.org/blog/2014/04/20/case-to-be-archived/
Title: Re: Supreme Court rules against the McCanns in damages case.
Post by: Robittybob1 on February 09, 2017, 08:54:48 AM
Still perplexed why apparently none of the MSM is running with the judgement &%+((£
worry no more..........
Been a long time coming to read the below in the MSM:
MCCANNS 'NOT IN THE CLEAR' Removal of Kate and Gerry’s ‘formal suspect’ status does not mean they are innocent in disappearance of daughter Madeleine McCann, judges say Portugal’s Supreme Court has cast doubt over the parents of missing Madeleine once again - claiming there are 'serious concerns' in abduction theory
KATE and Gerry McCann face fresh heartache after judges said they had not been cleared over daughter Madeleine’s disappearance. Portugal’s Supreme Court has said the removal of their “arguido” — or formal suspect — status should not be “equated to proof of innocence”.
The country’s most senior judges claimed the investigation into them was only shelved in 2008 because of a lack of evidence. And they said there were “serious concerns” over the theory that Madeleine had been abducted from their Ocean Club apartment in Praia da Luz, in May 2007.
Title: Re: Supreme Court rules against the McCanns in damages case.
Post by: misty on February 09, 2017, 01:06:26 PM
Been a long time coming to read the below in the MSM:
MCCANNS 'NOT IN THE CLEAR' Removal of Kate and Gerry’s ‘formal suspect’ status does not mean they are innocent in disappearance of daughter Madeleine McCann, judges say Portugal’s Supreme Court has cast doubt over the parents of missing Madeleine once again - claiming there are 'serious concerns' in abduction theory
KATE and Gerry McCann face fresh heartache after judges said they had not been cleared over daughter Madeleine’s disappearance. Portugal’s Supreme Court has said the removal of their “arguido” — or formal suspect — status should not be “equated to proof of innocence”.
The country’s most senior judges claimed the investigation into them was only shelved in 2008 because of a lack of evidence. And they said there were “serious concerns” over the theory that Madeleine had been abducted from their Ocean Club apartment in Praia da Luz, in May 2007.
It's 2017 now. Like their justice system, the judges are rather behind the times.
Title: Re: Supreme Court rules against the McCanns in damages case.
Post by: ferryman on February 09, 2017, 01:23:47 PM
It's 2017 now. Like their justice system, the judges are rather behind the times.
Is right!
There is a (sort of) equivalent in English law that Sion Jenkins benefited from. He was convicted of the murder of his daughter-in-law, Billy-Jo on the strength of expert witness in court that specs of Billy-Jo's blood, found on Jenkins' clothes, could only have got there if Jenkins was with with her while she was alive.
But then the defence found an expert witness who testified that the blood could have got there after Billy-Jo had died.
And Jenkins was accorded benefit of the doubt, released from his prison sentence and freed (but not compensated).
These Portuguese judges appear to have applied a similar principle to the McCanns, clearly without having read the files and without having researched the facts properly.
Disgraceful.
Title: Re: Supreme Court rules against the McCanns in damages case.
Post by: stephen25000 on February 09, 2017, 01:28:44 PM
There is a (sort of) equivalent in English law that Sion Jenkins benefited from. He was convicted of the murder of his daughter-in-law, Billy-Jo on the strength of expert witness in court that specs of Billy-Jo's blood, found on Jenkins' clothes, could only have got there if Jenkins was with with her while she was alive.
But then the defence found an expert witness who testified that the blood could have got there after Billy-Jo had died.
And Jenkins was accorded benefit of the doubt, released from his prison sentence and freed (but not compensated).
These Portuguese judges appear to have applied a similar principle to the McCanns, clearly without having read the files and without having researched the facts properly.
Disgraceful.
What is disgraceful is your continued besmirching of anyone who goes against the McCann line.
So, a bit of straightforward advice. The Supreme Court is done and dusted, and the McCann's have a great deal more to worry about now, so try helping them in a constructive way for a change.
Title: Re: Supreme Court rules against the McCanns in damages case.
Post by: xtina on February 09, 2017, 01:37:48 PM
What is disgraceful is your continued besmirching of anyone who goes against the McCann line.
So, a bit of straightforward advice. The Supreme Court is done and dusted, and the McCann's have a great deal more to worry about now, so try helping them in a constructive way for a change.
Who went against the McCann line? ... not anyone that I have seen. What I have noticed are high court judges who have played fast and loose with the principals of decency and the law of the land while traducing the human rights of individuals which are enshrined in law internationally and within their own borders.
Title: Re: Supreme Court rules against the McCanns in damages case.
Post by: G-Unit on February 09, 2017, 01:51:21 PM
What is disgraceful is your continued besmirching of anyone who goes against the McCann line.
So, a bit of straightforward advice. The Supreme Court is done and dusted, and the McCann's have a great deal more to worry about now, so try helping them in a constructive way for a change.
LOL - A bit of straightforward advice for you Stephen. Considering you spend your whole time on here denigrating the McCanns and anyone who doesn't take your sceptic line - I advise you to look up the word IRONY as you appear to have no understanding whatsoever of what it means.
Title: Re: Supreme Court rules against the McCanns in damages case.
Post by: G-Unit on February 09, 2017, 01:53:36 PM
Who went against the McCann line? ... not anyone that I have seen. What I have noticed are high court judges who have played fast and loose with the principals of decency and the law of the land while traducing the human rights of individuals which are enshrined in law internationally and within their own borders.
It would be interesting to see your assertions supported by reference to citations.
Title: Re: Supreme Court rules against the McCanns in damages case.
Post by: Brietta on February 09, 2017, 01:54:04 PM
so basically 2008 has nothing to do with the new ruling??
A civil court has interfered in a questionable manner in the ruling of the Attorney General relating to a criminal case. I will be surprised if questions are not being asked in modern Portugal about what has been done here.
Title: Re: Supreme Court rules against the McCanns in damages case.
Post by: stephen25000 on February 09, 2017, 01:55:57 PM
LOL - A bit of straightforward advice for you Stephen. Considering you spend your whole time on here denigrating the McCanns and anyone who doesn't take your sceptic line - I advise you to look up the word IRONY as you appear to have no understanding whatsoever of what it means.
The McCann's are responsible for what they failed to do.
You, like other supporters like to shift the blame onto others.
Well, time to get over the Supreme Court decision.
So Benice, what have you done to help the Mccann's and have you searched for Madeleine ?
Title: Re: Supreme Court rules against the McCanns in damages case.
Post by: stephen25000 on February 09, 2017, 01:57:30 PM
Who went against the McCann line? ... not anyone that I have seen. What I have noticed are high court judges who have played fast and loose with the principals of decency and the law of the land while traducing the human rights of individuals which are enshrined in law internationally and within their own borders.
That is your opinion, not mine.
I'm still waiting for the day when you criticize the McCann's actions.
Something tells me that will never happen.
Title: Re: Supreme Court rules against the McCanns in damages case.
Post by: carlymichelle on February 09, 2017, 01:57:59 PM
It would be interesting to see your assertions supported by reference to citations.
Nothing I have posted requires a cite. I have an opinion. Which I believe is covered by freedom of speech. If you are unable to argue your point ... please do not resort to goading such as demanding unnecessary cites.
Title: Re: Supreme Court rules against the McCanns in damages case.
Post by: Eleanor on February 09, 2017, 01:59:49 PM
I shall be removing Goading Posts in full, henceforth.
Title: Re: Supreme Court rules against the McCanns in damages case.
Post by: G-Unit on February 09, 2017, 02:12:33 PM
Nothing I have posted requires a cite. I have an opinion. Which I believe is covered by freedom of speech. If you are unable to argue your point ... please do not resort to goading such as demanding unnecessary cites.
I strongly deny goading. You said;
What I have noticed are high court judges who have played fast and loose with the principals of decency and the law of the land while traducing the human rights of individuals which are enshrined in law internationally and within their own borders.
How have the judges 'played fast and loose with the law of the land'? Which law? How have they 'traduced the human rights' of anyone? Which human rights?
I think that calls for clarification. If you can't be more specific your opinion is baseless.
Title: Re: Supreme Court rules against the McCanns in damages case.
Post by: carlymichelle on February 09, 2017, 02:21:50 PM
What I have noticed are high court judges who have played fast and loose with the principals of decency and the law of the land while traducing the human rights of individuals which are enshrined in law internationally and within their own borders.
How have the judges 'played fast and loose with the law of the land'? Which law? How have they 'traduced the human rights' of anyone? Which human rights?
I think that calls for clarification. If you can't be more specific your opinion is baseless.
well said g unit just because you dont like what someone says doesnt mean the person is goading the only human rights that were violated were maddies she had a right to be cared for by her parents and she wasnt well its all came back to haunt them now hasent it
Title: Re: Supreme Court rules against the McCanns in damages case.
Post by: stephen25000 on February 09, 2017, 02:22:37 PM
''It should not be said that the appellants were cleared via the ruling announcing the archiving of the criminal case''
The McCann's are responsible for what they failed to do.
You, like other supporters like to shift the blame onto others.
Well, time to get over the Supreme Court decision.
So Benice, what have you done to help the Mccann's and have you searched for Madeleine ?
The usual 'moving the goalposts' tactics are duly noted as none of the above has anything to do with my post pointing out the supreme irony of your comments to Ferryman. i.e.
You said What is disgraceful is your continued besmirching of anyone who goes against the McCann line. End quote
Why would I bother to answer your questions when you have a 100 per cent record of never accepting my answers? It would be a total waste of time.
Title: Re: Supreme Court rules against the McCanns in damages case.
Post by: stephen25000 on February 09, 2017, 02:58:20 PM
The usual 'moving the goalposts' tactics are duly noted as none of the above has anything to do with my post pointing out the supreme irony of your comments to Ferryman. i.e.
You said What is disgraceful is your continued besmirching of anyone who goes against the McCann line. End quote
Why would I bother to answer your questions when you have a 100 per cent record of never accepting my answers? It would be a total waste of time.
As you don't except my answers, that ranks of hypocrisy.
Title: Re: Supreme Court rules against the McCanns in damages case.
Post by: Eleanor on February 09, 2017, 03:00:42 PM
I don't agree with the supreme Court decision, but at least I understand it.
What I don't understand is for why the Supreme Court Judges felt the need to comment on the guilt or innocence of The McCanns and the fate of Madeleine as this was not their remit.
This is the real issue for The Court of Human Rights, should it go that far.
Title: Re: Supreme Court rules against the McCanns in damages case.
Post by: G-Unit on February 09, 2017, 03:10:24 PM
I don't agree with the supreme Court decision, but at least I understand it.
What I don't understand is for why the Supreme Court Judges felt the need to comment on the guilt or innocence of The McCanns and the fate of Madeleine as this was not their remit.
This is the real issue for The Court of Human Rights, should it go that far.
I think they were mostly responding to points raised by the McCann's lawyer. It was she who argued that the McCanns were cleared by the archiving dispatch. They replied because she was wrong.
Title: Re: Supreme Court rules against the McCanns in damages case.
Post by: Brietta on February 09, 2017, 03:13:49 PM
I don't agree with the supreme Court decision, but at least I understand it.
What I don't understand is for why the Supreme Court Judges felt the need to comment on the guilt or innocence of The McCanns and the fate of Madeleine as this was not their remit.
This is the real issue for The Court of Human Rights, should it go that far.
I was of the opinion that perhaps the McCanns might have written off losing the libel case for exactly what it was worth (in my opinion an aberration) and to continue with their work and their family as best they can. Bearing in mind that the next huge milestone in their lives will be Madeleine ten years missing followed by police decisions on whether or not they have reason to request more funding to be made available to continue her case.
It is now my firm opinion that they have been left with no choice but the European Court ... this time not on Madeleine's behalf ... but on their own.
Title: Re: Supreme Court rules against the McCanns in damages case.
Post by: Eleanor on February 09, 2017, 03:19:06 PM
I think they were mostly responding to points raised by the McCann's lawyer. It was she who argued that the McCanns were cleared by the archiving dispatch. They replied because she was wrong.
These points were discarded as it was not the remit of The Court to rule on this.
I think that The Supreme Court have just handed The McCanns their backsides on a platter.
Title: Re: Supreme Court rules against the McCanns in damages case.
Post by: G-Unit on February 09, 2017, 03:20:39 PM
It is my firm opinion that the McCanns will suffer another humiliating defeat if they appeal this decision to the ECHR.
Title: Re: Supreme Court rules against the McCanns in damages case.
Post by: Eleanor on February 09, 2017, 03:25:21 PM
I was of the opinion that perhaps the McCanns might have written off losing the libel case for exactly what it was worth (in my opinion an aberration) and to continue with their work and their family as best they can. Bearing in mind that the next huge milestone in their lives will be Madeleine ten years missing followed by police decisions on whether or not they have reason to request more funding to be made available to continue her case.
It is now my firm opinion that they have been left with no choice but the European Court ... this time not on Madeleine's behalf ... but on their own.
And The McCanns won't be pursuing Amaral, but The State of Portugal.
I can hardly wait, if I live that long. But I suspect that it might be marginally quicker than any sort of Justice in Portugal. Presuming that Portugal has any conception of Justice.
Title: Re: Supreme Court rules against the McCanns in damages case.
Post by: Eleanor on February 09, 2017, 03:30:25 PM
This is always a possibility. But what price for keeping Madeleine in the limelight? And what price for dragging Portugal into the 21st century.
The price will be more of the fund intended to be used to search for Madeleine being used to fund litigation to defend her parents. That would certainly keep them in the limelight. I think Portugal's libel laws are more in tune with the 21st Century than those of the UK. They were not criticised by the United Nations Human Rights Committee for attracting libel tourists for a start.
Title: Re: Supreme Court rules against the McCanns in damages case.
Post by: jassi on February 09, 2017, 03:58:38 PM
Not sure it would keep them in the limelight. These cases tend to disappear into a black hole until result is announced. Why should this be any different with Bell Pottinger long gone.
Title: Re: Supreme Court rules against the McCanns in damages case.
Post by: Eleanor on February 09, 2017, 04:06:31 PM
The price will be more of the fund intended to be used to search for Madeleine being used to fund litigation to defend her parents. That would certainly keep them in the limelight. I think Portugal's libel laws are more in tune with the 21st Century than those of the UK. They were not criticised by the United Nations Human Rights Committee for attracting libel tourists for a start.
But Portugal has been criticised by Amnesty International for what they did to The Ciprianos.
Title: Re: Supreme Court rules against the McCanns in damages case.
Post by: ferryman on February 09, 2017, 04:08:32 PM
What is disgraceful is your continued besmirching of anyone who goes against the McCann line.
So, a bit of straightforward advice. The Supreme Court is done and dusted, and the McCann's have a great deal more to worry about now, so try helping them in a constructive way for a change.
There isn't a 'McCann line'.
There is a plain, simple and inalienable truth that escaped these Portuguese appeal-court judges.
The McCanns played no part in the disappearance of their daughter, Madeleine, and the files demonstrably demonstrate that so.
Title: Re: Supreme Court rules against the McCanns in damages case.
Post by: slartibartfast on February 09, 2017, 04:20:40 PM
It is my firm opinion that the McCanns will suffer another humiliating defeat if they appeal this decision to the ECHR.
Five years for the court to decide if there is a case to be answered and another five years for the case to be heard. Steel and Morris in the MacLibel Trial is always worth a read as a sense check. Accent on sense. http://www.5rb.com/case/steel-morris-v-united-kingdom/
Title: Re: Supreme Court rules against the McCanns in damages case.
Post by: stephen25000 on February 09, 2017, 05:31:59 PM
A civil court has interfered in a questionable manner in the ruling of the Attorney General relating to a criminal case. I will be surprised if questions are not being asked in modern Portugal about what has been done here.
A viewpoint seemingly not upheld by the judgement.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2017/02/09/madeleine-mccanns-parents-have-not-ruled-innocent-judge-says/ "Judges made it clear in their decision their job was not to decide whether the McCanns bore any criminal responsibility over their daughter's disappearance and said it would be wrong for anyone to draw any inferences about the couple's guilt or innocence from their ruling".
Title: Re: Supreme Court rules against the McCanns in damages case.
Post by: Mr Gray on February 09, 2017, 06:26:34 PM
We are being told that the mcccanns are not considered innocent because they have not been proved innocent That is a clear breach of their human rights Portugal seem to think it is a law unto itself...it isn't Had they been tried at the time of the archiving they would have been found not guilty I think and hope they wil go to the ECHR
Title: Re: Supreme Court rules against the McCanns in damages case.
Post by: G-Unit on February 09, 2017, 06:34:26 PM
We are being told that the mcccanns are not considered innocent because they have not been proved innocent That is a clear breach of their human rights Portugal seem to think it is a law unto itself...it isn't Had they been tried at the time of the archiving they would have been found not guilty I think and hope they wil go to the ECHR
You are being told that the archiving dispatch didn't clear the McCanns as they claimed it did. Nothing else. The Supreme Court judges gave no opinion on their guilt or innocence.
Title: Re: Supreme Court rules against the McCanns in damages case.
Post by: ShiningInLuz on February 09, 2017, 07:19:58 PM
We are being told that the mcccanns are not considered innocent because they have not been proved innocent That is a clear breach of their human rights Portugal seem to think it is a law unto itself...it isn't Had they been tried at the time of the archiving they would have been found not guilty I think and hope they wil go to the ECHR
They weren't tried at the time the case was archived. Even if they had been found not guilty, that is not the same as being found innocent.
I hope they don't go to the ECHR. IMO, it is money down the drain on legal fees, and a bucketload of adverse publicity. But they have picked the wrong option many a time so far. Even if it went against them, the ECHR would not be their worst choice to date.
Title: Re: Supreme Court rules against the McCanns in damages case.
Post by: Robittybob1 on February 09, 2017, 10:26:24 PM
The focus of the investigation was either find the McCanns or Robert Murat guilty. Since there was no evidence raised to show either of these guilty the investigation was shelved. There is no way short of a miracle that either will be proven innocent. I think SIL is spot on saying even if they were tried in court and found not guilty, the implication would still be there that they were not proven innocent. Proof of innocence would just about require the finding of a living Madeleine and a confession of an abductor. This seems unlikely as the focus was never on finding such a person.
Title: Re: Supreme Court rules against the McCanns in damages case.
Post by: misty on February 09, 2017, 10:53:52 PM
The focus of the investigation was either find the McCanns or Robert Murat guilty. Since there was no evidence raised to show either of these guilty the investigation was shelved. There is no way short of a miracle that either will be proven innocent. I think SIL is spot on saying even if they were tried in court and found not guilty, the implication would still be there that they were not proven innocent. Proof of innocence would just about require the finding of a living Madeleine and a confession of an abductor. This seems unlikely as the focus was never on finding such a person.
There have been 4 more arguidos since the archiving report. As they are all Portuguese residents it tends to suggest that the PJ have at least as much evidence against them as they did against the McCanns.
Title: Re: Supreme Court rules against the McCanns in damages case.
Post by: Robittybob1 on February 09, 2017, 10:57:35 PM
There have been 4 more arguidos since the archiving report. As they are all Portuguese residents it tends to suggest that the PJ have at least as much evidence against them as they did against the McCanns.
Their alibis may have been strong enough to prove their innocence. We don't know enough about them. But the McCanns checking on their kids and RM at home with his mother who presumably went to bed at some stage have no one who can substantiate their alibis for moments that night. They are stuck.
Title: Re: Supreme Court rules against the McCanns in damages case.
Post by: misty on February 09, 2017, 11:17:10 PM
Their alibis may have been strong enough to prove their innocence. We don't know enough about them. But the McCanns checking on their kids and RM at home with his mother who presumably went to bed at some stage have no one who can substantiate their alibis for moments that night. They are stuck.
Many innocent people in Luz that night may well have had no alibi but only 3 came under scrutiny intense enough to be made arguidos in 2007. Whilst the archiving report may correctly state that it did not totally exonerate the McCanns (and Murat) at that time it also did not exonerate any other person who had been the subject of less intense scrutiny.
Title: Re: Supreme Court rules against the McCanns in damages case.
Post by: Eleanor on February 09, 2017, 11:36:03 PM
We are being told that the mcccanns are not considered innocent because they have not been proved innocent That is a clear breach of their human rights Portugal seem to think it is a law unto itself...it isn't Had they been tried at the time of the archiving they would have been found not guilty I think and hope they wil go to the ECHR
I half hope that they will, but I don't know what that will do to them. Me? I would be in there kicking and hollering. But this hasn't happened to me, and so I cannot say what they should do.
In My Opinion, The Supreme Court of Portugal has just handed its arse on a platter to The McCanns.
Title: Re: Supreme Court rules against the McCanns in damages case.
Post by: Brietta on February 10, 2017, 12:26:37 AM
It is entirely for the McCanns to decide the best course of action for them. Damned if they do ~ damned if they don't.
They have needed and need Portuguese co-operation in the search for Madeleine. They have said or done nothing to rock that particular boat. There was a climate of hope with Madeleine's case being re-opened in Portugal with the co-operation of both police forces and the fair and enlightened conduct of the trial judges.
One wonders what was actually going on behind the scenes and how deep this goes. The old order hasn't changed as yet and I think that is well and truly brought home by the wording of the judgement.
How could those who framed that document and others with that mindset possibly put Madeleine's interests first?
In my opinion the McCanns never stood a chance of justice in Portugal. This judgement illustrates that the Portuguese State has been used against them and if so, the implication of that is devastating.
Title: Re: Supreme Court rules against the McCanns in damages case.
Post by: Eleanor on February 10, 2017, 12:55:42 AM
It is entirely for the McCanns to decide the best course of action for them. Damned if they do ~ damned if they don't.
They have needed and need Portuguese co-operation in the search for Madeleine. They have said or done nothing to rock that particular boat. There was a climate of hope with Madeleine's case being re-opened in Portugal with the co-operation of both police forces and the fair and enlightened conduct of the trial judges.
One wonders what was actually going on behind the scenes and how deep this goes. The old order hasn't changed as yet and I think that is well and truly brought home by the wording of the judgement.
How could those who framed that document and others with that mindset possibly put Madeleine's interests first?
In my opinion the McCanns never stood a chance of justice in Portugal. This judgement illustrates that the Portuguese State has been used against them and if so, the implication of that is devastating.
Don't worry about it, Love.... The Portuguese Judiciary has just shot itself in both feet. Almost certainly because they had far too much to say, and well beyond their remit.
Anyone can pull this apart and come up with whatever they like. The fact remains that there has never been any evidence to suggest that Madeleine is dead.
Title: Re: Supreme Court rules against the McCanns in damages case.
Post by: Brietta on February 10, 2017, 01:08:58 AM
Don't worry about it, Love.... The Portuguese Judiciary has just shot itself in both feet. Almost certainly because they had far too much to say, and well beyond their remit.
Anyone can pull this apart and come up with whatever they like. The fact remains that there has never been any evidence to suggest that Madeleine is dead.
Agreed. The more they have said, the more there is to build a case with. Injudicious of them to say the least to supply so much ammunition. It really wasn't necessary as I think there was a fair chance the McCanns would have cut their losses and left it at that ... now I think that the odds are that they will go the European route. I for one, hope they do.
Title: Re: Supreme Court rules against the McCanns in damages case.
Post by: Eleanor on February 10, 2017, 01:56:54 AM
Agreed. The more they have said, the more there is to build a case with. Injudicious of them to say the least to supply so much ammunition. It really wasn't necessary as I think there was a fair chance the McCanns would have cut their losses and left it at that ... now I think that the odds are that they will go the European route. I for one, hope they do.
You see, all The Supreme Court had to do was to rule on the right of Amaral to Free Speech. I might not agree with their decision, but I do understand it.
But then they went beyond their remit and into the possible guilt or innocence of The McCanns, and the possible fate of Madeleine, neither of which they know anything about, or were ever called upon to decide.
And please don't let us be chary about this. We all know what they meant, as has been made apparent even on this Forum.
Or did I get that wrong? Mayhap The Supreme Court didn't mean what Sceptics think they meant. Or perhaps the Sceptics don't think that The Court meant what they would like to believe, and are just bull shitting.
Come which way or what The Supreme Court of Portugal has just dumped itself in the dunny.
Title: Re: Supreme Court rules against the McCanns in damages case.
Post by: John on February 10, 2017, 02:43:42 AM
The Supreme Court has done nothing other than clarify what the Archiving Report stated nearly ten years ago.
"It should not be said that the appellants were cleared via the ruling announcing the archiving of the criminal case. In truth, that ruling was not made in virtue of Portugal's Public Prosecution Service having acquired the conviction that the appellants hadn't committed a crime.
"The archiving of the case was determined by the fact that public prosecutors hadn't managed to obtain sufficient evidence of the practice of crimes by the appellants.
"There is therefore a significant, and not merely a semantic difference, between the legally admissible foundations of the archive ruling. It doesn't therefore seem acceptable that the ruling, based on the insufficiency of evidence, should be equated to proof of innocence.
You see, all The Supreme Court had to do was to rule on the right of Amaral to Free Speech. I might not agree with their decision, but I do understand it.
But then they went beyond their remit and into the possible guilt or innocence of The McCanns, and the possible fate of Madeleine, neither of which they know anything about, or were ever called upon to decide.
And please don't let us be chary about this. We all know what they meant, as has been made apparent even on this Forum.
Or did I get that wrong? Mayhap The Supreme Court didn't mean what Sceptics think they meant. Or perhaps the Sceptics don't think that The Court meant what they would like to believe, and are just bull shitting.
Come which way or what The Supreme Court of Portugal has just dumped itself in the dunny.
You can be allowed to have freedom of speech but surely that doesn't allow the freedom to defame. I think this might be why they ventured into the new ground for it would be defamation if the McCanns were innocent and an outright lie if Madeleine was still alive. They declared the McCanns aren't proven innocent. Hardly unlikely for the only evidence sought was in order to prove them guilty. No one was trying to prove they were innocent. They declared that Madeleine was most likely dead.
It doesn't seem like a sound judgement to me. It seems more like guesswork.
Title: Re: Supreme Court rules against the McCanns in damages case.
Post by: Eleanor on February 10, 2017, 03:16:23 AM
Nor should it be equated to proof of Guilt. Which is precisely what is going on at the moment on this Forum, give or take a bit of semantics.
But no doubt we will survive. Thanks to the efforts of your most excellent Moderators.
Title: Re: Supreme Court rules against the McCanns in damages case.
Post by: Eleanor on February 10, 2017, 03:18:40 AM
You can be allowed to have freedom of speech but surely that doesn't allow the freedom to defame. I think this might be why they ventured into the new ground for it would be defamation if the McCanns were innocent and an outright lie if Madeleine was still alive. They declared the McCanns aren't proven innocent. Hardly unlikely for the only evidence sought was in order to prove them guilty. No one was trying to prove they were innocent. They declared that Madeleine was most likely dead.
It doesn't seem like a sound judgement to me. It seems more like guesswork.
Guesswork? I think that you are being too kind.
Title: Re: Supreme Court rules against the McCanns in damages case.
Post by: Robittybob1 on February 10, 2017, 03:22:49 AM
My opinion wouldn't be an "Explanation" because I don't have to explain. But my opinion would very likely be deemed Libellous. In the absence of any proof of their incompetency.
Title: Re: Supreme Court rules against the McCanns in damages case.
Post by: G-Unit on February 10, 2017, 07:19:37 AM
You can be allowed to have freedom of speech but surely that doesn't allow the freedom to defame. I think this might be why they ventured into the new ground for it would be defamation if the McCanns were innocent and an outright lie if Madeleine was still alive. They declared the McCanns aren't proven innocent. Hardly unlikely for the only evidence sought was in order to prove them guilty. No one was trying to prove they were innocent. They declared that Madeleine was most likely dead.
It doesn't seem like a sound judgement to me. It seems more like guesswork.
Everyone has picked up on 'they declared the McCanns aren't proven innocent'. The judges actually say the McCanns weren't cleared by the archiving dispatch. They said that because Duarte claimed that they were. She said;
already cleared before through the filing dispatch of a criminal investigation [page 40]
The judges replied;
“And let it not be said, also, that the appellants were cleared by the archival dispatch of the crime-process.
Title: Re: Supreme Court rules against the McCanns in damages case.
Post by: carlymichelle on February 10, 2017, 07:23:02 AM
Everyone has picked up on 'they declared the McCanns aren't proven innocent'. The judges actually say the McCanns weren't cleared by the archiving dispatch. They said that because Duarte claimed that they were. She said;
already cleared before through the filing dispatch of a criminal investigation [page 40]
The judges replied;
“And let it not be said, also, that the appellants were cleared by the archival dispatch of the crime-process.
so their lawyer told them they were cleared even though we now know they were not??
Title: Re: Supreme Court rules against the McCanns in damages case.
Post by: G-Unit on February 10, 2017, 07:50:27 AM
so their lawyer told them they were cleared even though we now know they were not??
Isabel Duarte seemed to believe the archiving dispatch cleared them. She has been corrected by the judges of the Supreme Court.
There was misunderstanding of the archive dispatch before she got involved, however, this news report seems to equate clearing of the arguido status with clearing of involvement;
Madeleine McCann: Kate and Gerry cleared of 'arguido' status by Portuguese police The parents of Madeleine McCann have been cleared of involvement in their daughter's disappearance, http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/newstopics/madeleinemccann/2439530/Madeleine-McCann-Kate-and-Gerry-cleared-of-arguido-status-by-Portuguese-police.html
Title: Re: Supreme Court rules against the McCanns in damages case.
Post by: stephen25000 on February 10, 2017, 08:05:05 AM
''It should not be said that the appellants were cleared via the ruling announcing the archiving of the criminal case''
That was the situation when the case was archived, and has been discussed numerous times on here, though people such as ferryman continued to deny it.
Now if Duarte didn't know that, she was incompetent.
Title: Re: Supreme Court rules against the McCanns in damages case.
Post by: G-Unit on February 10, 2017, 08:14:10 AM
One or two might be feeling a bit uneasy that they've backed the wrong horse- not that they're going to admit it.
Nothing has changed The McCanns have never and will never be charged with anything because they are innocent and anyone who thinks otherwise is deluded imo
Title: Re: Supreme Court rules against the McCanns in damages case.
Post by: Robittybob1 on February 10, 2017, 10:27:38 AM
Isabel Duarte seemed to believe the archiving dispatch cleared them. She has been corrected by the judges of the Supreme Court.
There was misunderstanding of the archive dispatch before she got involved, however, this news report seems to equate clearing of the arguido status with clearing of involvement;
Madeleine McCann: Kate and Gerry cleared of 'arguido' status by Portuguese police The parents of Madeleine McCann have been cleared of involvement in their daughter's disappearance, http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/newstopics/madeleinemccann/2439530/Madeleine-McCann-Kate-and-Gerry-cleared-of-arguido-status-by-Portuguese-police.html
That was interesting for then it was stated there was no evidence against the McCanns, not insufficent evidence but none. "Fourteen months after she disappeared, Portugal's attorney-general, Fernando Jose Pinto Monteiro, said the police had found no evidence linking the McCanns, or fellow suspect Robert Murat, to Madeleine's suspected abduction. http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/newstopics/madeleinemccann/2439530/Madeleine-McCann-Kate-and-Gerry-cleared-of-arguido-status-by-Portuguese-police.html "The case involving Madeleine McCann will be shelved following the decision by the two magistrates in charge that no evidence was found to implicate the arguidos," his statement read."
So wouldn't that suggest they were innocent?
Title: Re: Supreme Court rules against the McCanns in damages case.
Post by: stephen25000 on February 10, 2017, 10:30:36 AM
That was interesting for then it was stated there was no evidence against the McCanns, not insufficent evidence but none. "Fourteen months after she disappeared, Portugal's attorney-general, Fernando Jose Pinto Monteiro, said the police had found no evidence linking the McCanns, or fellow suspect Robert Murat, to Madeleine's suspected abduction. http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/newstopics/madeleinemccann/2439530/Madeleine-McCann-Kate-and-Gerry-cleared-of-arguido-status-by-Portuguese-police.html "The case involving Madeleine McCann will be shelved following the decision by the two magistrates in charge that no evidence was found to implicate the arguidos," his statement read."
The law has been dealt with in the Supreme Court JUDGEMENT.
Get over it.
They can't appeal in Portugal
Title: Re: Supreme Court rules against the McCanns in damages case.
Post by: Robittybob1 on February 10, 2017, 10:35:25 AM
Nothing has changed The McCanns have never and will never be charged with anything because they are innocent and anyone who thinks otherwise is deluded imo
not as deluded ...as anyone who thinks they can go to the.......... ECHR
it does show though they care more for there reputation .than anything else ....
and spent a fortune .trying to protect it ......
Title: Re: Supreme Court rules against the McCanns in damages case.
Post by: carlymichelle on February 10, 2017, 10:37:28 AM
The law has been dealt with in the Supreme Court JUDGEMENT.
Get over it.
They can't appeal in Portugal
Steohen, would you kindly stop telling McCann supporters to "get over it", it's as annoying and provocative as Brexiteers and Trump supporters saying the same thing to their opposite number. Just because we're on the "losing" side doesn't mean we have to shut up and accept the judgement, surely you can understand that?
Title: Re: Supreme Court rules against the McCanns in damages case.
Post by: Robittybob1 on February 10, 2017, 10:51:09 AM
its a class war with mcann supporters always has been here in australia doctors have no more standing then normal people they go to work and go home they are not above anyone else
Title: Re: Supreme Court rules against the McCanns in damages case.
Post by: Alfie on February 10, 2017, 10:56:06 AM
its a class war with mcann supporters always has been here in australia doctors have no more standing then normal people they go to work and go home they are not above anyone else
Robbitrob is an antipodean, but perhaps doctors are held in higher esteem in NZ...?
Title: Re: Supreme Court rules against the McCanns in damages case.
Post by: John on February 10, 2017, 10:58:24 AM
''It should not be said that the appellants were cleared via the ruling announcing the archiving of the criminal case''
That was the situation when the case was archived, and has been discussed numerous times on here, though people such as ferryman continued to deny it.
Now if Duarte didn't know that, she was incompetent.
Duarte is the McCanns solicitor and will act in their interest. Little surprise then that she made the comments she did irrespective of their validity.
Title: Re: Supreme Court rules against the McCanns in damages case.
Post by: John on February 10, 2017, 11:00:01 AM
Steohen, would you kindly stop telling McCann supporters to "get over it", it's as annoying and provocative as Brexiteers and Trump supporters saying the same thing to their opposite number. Just because we're on the "losing" side doesn't mean we have to shut up and accept the judgement, surely you can understand that?
Fair point Alfie.
I'll take that on board.
However, unlike Brexit, whatever that actually means, The Portuguese Supreme Court judgement, cannot be overturned or amended.
That is the point I was trying to make.
Title: Re: Supreme Court rules against the McCanns in damages case.
Post by: jassi on February 10, 2017, 11:02:15 AM
Steohen, would you kindly stop telling McCann supporters to "get over it", it's as annoying and provocative as Brexiteers and Trump supporters saying the same thing to their opposite number. Just because we're on the "losing" side doesn't mean we have to shut up and accept the judgement, surely you can understand that?
You do have to accept the judgement because it cannot be altered.
Title: Re: Supreme Court rules against the McCanns in damages case.
Post by: stephen25000 on February 10, 2017, 11:03:00 AM
its a class war with mcann supporters always has been here in australia doctors have no more standing then normal people they go to work and go home they are not above anyone else
Drs. are not above anyone else here either, I have a Dr in the family and I can tell you he doesn't see himself better than anyone else, after work, he doesn't want to think of being a Dr. he wants to relax and have a normal family life.
They may be more savvy in how to fight their side though, having intelligence , but that isn't just Drs. it's anyone with intelligence.
Title: Re: Supreme Court rules against the McCanns in damages case.
Post by: Robittybob1 on February 10, 2017, 11:16:00 AM
Drs. are not above anyone else here either, I have a Dr in the family and I can tell you he doesn't see himself better than anyone else, after work, he doesn't want to think of being a Dr. he wants to relax and have a normal family life.
They may be more savvy in how to fight their side though, having intelligence , but that isn't just Drs. it's anyone with intelligence.
Patients will choose a doctor based on their reputation. Promotion will also depend on their reputation. I'm not saying we are above others but we defend our reputation.
Title: Re: Supreme Court rules against the McCanns in damages case.
Post by: Erngath on February 10, 2017, 11:24:19 AM
its a class war with mcann supporters always has been here in australia doctors have no more standing then normal people they go to work and go home they are not above anyone else
I had two uncles who were Doctors. I don't think they considered themselves to be of any class, nor did their patients but they were held in high regard for being caring, hardworking professionals. Doctors do have more "standing" here within our community because of the dedication they commit to their profesion. Not a question of " class war"
Title: Re: Supreme Court rules against the McCanns in damages case.
Post by: Alfie on February 10, 2017, 11:34:01 AM
As am I. I'm still in denial about the Independence referendum, the Brexit decision and Trump's election victory. Might as well go for broke. ?{)(**
Just wait until France gets Marine le Penn. Nope, I won't be leaving France. But I might have to become a French Citizen. But I don't think even France is that daft. So who's more in denial than you?
Should we have a contest, do you think?
Title: Re: Supreme Court rules against the McCanns in damages case.
Post by: xtina on February 10, 2017, 12:16:39 PM
N. The rights to freedom of expression and information and the right to freedom of the press and social communication media are enshrined in articles 370 and 380 of the Constitution of the Portuguese Republic.
O. And further, the right to freedom of expression is enshrined in Articles 19 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights and 10 of the European Convention on Human Rights.
Contrary to the claim of the appellants, various decisions of the European Court of Human Rights (ECHR), that can be consulted, have come to condemn the Portuguese Courts of Law for violating the right to freedom of expression and freedom of the press by condemning journalists and other citizens for defamation. Q. The ECHR considers that the right to freedom of expression is one of the essential foundations of a democratic society. R. The Supreme Court of Justice in Portugal has also delivered judgments that value the right to freedom of expression, to the detriment of other rights. S. In view of the exposed elements, there can be no doubt that the right to freedom of expression and the right to freedom of the press are fundamental in a democratic State of Law.
Title: Re: Supreme Court rules against the McCanns in damages case.
Post by: Mr Gray on February 10, 2017, 12:25:40 PM
Fine with me. I recognise and accept the reality and finality of this judgement.
I'm sure we all understand that this is the final judgement in this case. That does not mean we have to accept it is a fair just judgement....if you think the judgement is beyond question then you are in denial.
The Portuguese justice system seems seriously flawed based on some of the other things we have heard on this forum
Title: Re: Supreme Court rules against the McCanns in damages case.
Post by: stephen25000 on February 10, 2017, 12:28:24 PM
I'm sure we all understand that this is the final judgement in this case. That does not mean we have to accept it is a fair just judgement....if you think the judgement is beyond question then you are in denial.
The Portuguese justice system seems seriously flawed based on some of the other things we have heard on this forum
It doesn't matter what you think on this, the judgement is final.
Title: Re: Supreme Court rules against the McCanns in damages case.
Post by: jassi on February 10, 2017, 12:32:59 PM
I'm sure we all understand that this is the final judgement in this case. That does not mean we have to accept it is a fair just judgement....if you think the judgement is beyond question then you are in denial.
The Portuguese justice system seems seriously flawed based on some of the other things we have heard on this forum
You have a strange concept of denial. I accept the decision - you deny it.
Title: Re: Supreme Court rules against the McCanns in damages case.
Post by: Eleanor on February 10, 2017, 12:38:23 PM
N. The rights to freedom of expression and information and the right to freedom of the press and social communication media are enshrined in articles 370 and 380 of the Constitution of the Portuguese Republic.
O. And further, the right to freedom of expression is enshrined in Articles 19 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights and 10 of the European Convention on Human Rights.
Contrary to the claim of the appellants, various decisions of the European Court of Human Rights (ECHR), that can be consulted, have come to condemn the Portuguese Courts of Law for violating the right to freedom of expression and freedom of the press by condemning journalists and other citizens for defamation. Q. The ECHR considers that the right to freedom of expression is one of the essential foundations of a democratic society. R. The Supreme Court of Justice in Portugal has also delivered judgments that value the right to freedom of expression, to the detriment of other rights. S. In view of the exposed elements, there can be no doubt that the right to freedom of expression and the right to freedom of the press are fundamental in a democratic State of Law.
Right. So that's it then. We might as well all go home. But I can't see that happening any time soon.
Title: Re: Supreme Court rules against the McCanns in damages case.
Post by: John on February 10, 2017, 01:30:16 PM
I'm sure we all understand that this is the final judgement in this case. That does not mean we have to accept it is a fair just judgement....if you think the judgement is beyond question then you are in denial.
The Portuguese justice system seems seriously flawed based on some of the other things we have heard on this forum
What some still fail to comprehend is that this is an 'unsolved case'. The courts have to take this into account in any decision they make so no wonder they are cautious. Amaral might be wrong, then again he might be right, this might be resolved then again it might not. This mystery could endure for ever!
The Supreme Court has ruled that the Appeal Court were correct to overturn the decision of the First Instance Court which concluded that Gonçalo Amaral did not damage the McCanns reputation and so were not entitled to damages.
Title: Re: Supreme Court rules against the McCanns in damages case.
Post by: misty on February 10, 2017, 01:42:54 PM
What some still fail to comprehend is that this is an 'unsolved case'. The courts have to take this into account in any decision they make so no wonder they are cautious. Amaral might be wrong, then again he might be right, this might be resolved then again it might not. This mystery could endure for ever!
The Supreme Court has ruled that the Appeal Court were correct to overturn the decision of the First Instance Court which concluded that Gonçalo Amaral did not damage the McCanns reputation and so were not entitled to damages.
As the case is unsolved & the case itself was not the subject of any appeal the SC should have adopted Judicial Impartiality on innocence/guilt & based their decision solely on whether the author is permitted to defame the plaintiffs in the manner he did.
Title: Re: Supreme Court rules against the McCanns in damages case.
Post by: G-Unit on February 10, 2017, 02:15:21 PM
That was interesting for then it was stated there was no evidence against the McCanns, not insufficent evidence but none. "Fourteen months after she disappeared, Portugal's attorney-general, Fernando Jose Pinto Monteiro, said the police had found no evidence linking the McCanns, or fellow suspect Robert Murat, to Madeleine's suspected abduction. http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/newstopics/madeleinemccann/2439530/Madeleine-McCann-Kate-and-Gerry-cleared-of-arguido-status-by-Portuguese-police.html "The case involving Madeleine McCann will be shelved following the decision by the two magistrates in charge that no evidence was found to implicate the arguidos," his statement read."
So wouldn't that suggest they were innocent?
The archiving dispatch was written by two public prosecutors who passed it to the AG the same day. His office issued a press release telling what it said;
By the dispatch of today’s date (21.07.2008 ) issued by the two magistrates of the Public Ministry competent in the case, it was decided that the inquiry relating to the disappearance of the minor Madeleine McCann will be archived due to insufficient proof of any crime having been perpetrated by the arguidos. https://hypocriteandliar.wordpress.com/tag/gerry-and-kate-mccann/
Someone's translation is wrong.
Title: Re: Supreme Court rules against the McCanns in damages case.
Post by: MrsWuh on February 10, 2017, 02:21:22 PM
I’ve been reading this forum for a few years now, but haven’t felt inclined to join in before. But a few people have said that the Supreme Court ruling must mean that Murat is also still a suspect. This isn’t true, as the text of the final archival report does, in fact, completely clear him:
“It is nevertheless certain that through the collected evidence, said suspicions gradually emptied themselves, until the point where any connection of the arguido to the child's disappearance was set aside, which is why, at the end, the archiving of the process will be determined.”
The McCanns did not receive the same unequivocal exoneration:
“We believe that the main damage was caused to the McCann arguidos, who lost the possibility to prove what they have protested since they were constituted arguidos: their innocence towards the fateful event; the investigation was also disturbed, because said facts remain unclarified.”
The Supreme Court hasn’t made any judgement on the McCanns’ guilt or innocence. It merely pointed out that the McCanns cannot use the archival report to claim that they had been categorically cleared of involvement – their arguido status was lifted due to a lack of evidence and nothing could be proved either way.
Part of the McCanns’ case claimed that Amaral's book would have damaged the honour and good name of ‘any innocent person who had been cleared through the shelving of the criminal investigation’. It would have been somewhat remiss of the court not to point out that the archival report had not actually cleared them. The Supreme Court hasn’t ‘gone beyond its remit’ or made a ‘ruling’ or ignored ‘judicial impartiality’ on innocence or guilt – they have clarified a misinterpretation of a legal document by the claimants. It really is as simple as that.
So by all means carry on debating the right-to-free-expression vs. right-not-to-be-defamed angle. But please stop bashing the Portuguese legal system and (deliberately?) misinterpreting the judgement of their Supreme Court. After all, we know you would have been full of praise for them had the judgement gone the other way!
Title: Re: Supreme Court rules against the McCanns in damages case.
Post by: Mr Gray on February 10, 2017, 02:26:22 PM
What some still fail to comprehend is that this is an 'unsolved case'. The courts have to take this into account in any decision they make so no wonder they are cautious. Amaral might be wrong, then again he might be right, this might be resolved then again it might not. This mystery could endure for ever!
The Supreme Court has ruled that the Appeal Court were correct to overturn the decision of the First Instance Court which concluded that Gonçalo Amaral did not damage the McCanns reputation and so were not entitled to damages.
what you fail to understand John is that the Mccanns have the right to the presumption of innocence enshrined in european law which Portugal has signed up to. The judge in the first instance recognised this....the supreme court has not. The supreme court are wrong imo and the mccanns may well have avery straightforward case in the ECHR
Title: Re: Supreme Court rules against the McCanns in damages case.
Post by: stephen25000 on February 10, 2017, 02:29:17 PM
I’ve been reading this forum for a few years now, but haven’t felt inclined to join in before. But a few people have said that the Supreme Court ruling must mean that Murat is also still a suspect. This isn’t true, as the text of the final archival report does, in fact, completely clear him:
“It is nevertheless certain that through the collected evidence, said suspicions gradually emptied themselves, until the point where any connection of the arguido to the child's disappearance was set aside, which is why, at the end, the archiving of the process will be determined.”
The McCanns did not receive the same unequivocal exoneration:
“We believe that the main damage was caused to the McCann arguidos, who lost the possibility to prove what they have protested since they were constituted arguidos: their innocence towards the fateful event; the investigation was also disturbed, because said facts remain unclarified.”
The Supreme Court hasn’t made any judgement on the McCanns’ guilt or innocence. It merely pointed out that the McCanns cannot use the archival report to claim that they had been categorically cleared of involvement – their arguido status was lifted due to a lack of evidence and nothing could be proved either way.
Part of the McCanns’ case claimed that Amaral's book would have damaged the honour and good name of ‘any innocent person who had been cleared through the shelving of the criminal investigation’. It would have been somewhat remiss of the court not to point out that the archival report had not actually cleared them. The Supreme Court hasn’t ‘gone beyond its remit’ or made a ‘ruling’ or ignored ‘judicial impartiality’ on innocence or guilt – they have clarified a misinterpretation of a legal document by the claimants. It really is as simple as that.
So by all means carry on debating the right-to-free-expression vs. right-not-to-be-defamed angle. But please stop bashing the Portuguese legal system and (deliberately?) misinterpreting the judgement of their Supreme Court. After all, we know you would have been full of praise for them had the judgement gone the other way!
Well said MrsWuh.
...and welcome to this forum.
Your last sentence has a very pertinent point.
The McCann supporters would have been gloating if the Supreme Court had allowed the appeal, and given judgement in favour of the Mccanns.
Title: Re: Supreme Court rules against the McCanns in damages case.
Post by: Mr Gray on February 10, 2017, 02:35:56 PM
I’ve been reading this forum for a few years now, but haven’t felt inclined to join in before. But a few people have said that the Supreme Court ruling must mean that Murat is also still a suspect. This isn’t true, as the text of the final archival report does, in fact, completely clear him:
“It is nevertheless certain that through the collected evidence, said suspicions gradually emptied themselves, until the point where any connection of the arguido to the child's disappearance was set aside, which is why, at the end, the archiving of the process will be determined.”
The McCanns did not receive the same unequivocal exoneration:
“We believe that the main damage was caused to the McCann arguidos, who lost the possibility to prove what they have protested since they were constituted arguidos: their innocence towards the fateful event; the investigation was also disturbed, because said facts remain unclarified.”
The Supreme Court hasn’t made any judgement on the McCanns’ guilt or innocence. It merely pointed out that the McCanns cannot use the archival report to claim that they had been categorically cleared of involvement – their arguido status was lifted due to a lack of evidence and nothing could be proved either way.
Part of the McCanns’ case claimed that Amaral's book would have damaged the honour and good name of ‘any innocent person who had been cleared through the shelving of the criminal investigation’. It would have been somewhat remiss of the court not to point out that the archival report had not actually cleared them. The Supreme Court hasn’t ‘gone beyond its remit’ or made a ‘ruling’ or ignored ‘judicial impartiality’ on innocence or guilt – they have clarified a misinterpretation of a legal document by the claimants. It really is as simple as that.
So by all means carry on debating the right-to-free-expression vs. right-not-to-be-defamed angle. But please stop bashing the Portuguese legal system and (deliberately?) misinterpreting the judgement of their Supreme Court. After all, we know you would have been full of praise for them had the judgement gone the other way!
total tosh...if murat was cleared why was he reinterviewed by SY....
Title: Re: Supreme Court rules against the McCanns in damages case.
Post by: MrsWuh on February 10, 2017, 02:40:44 PM
Hello Davel. :) You are the reason I kept visiting this site - you're so funny! It's nice to meet you at last.
The Scotland Yard investigation has nothing to do with the Portuguese archival report. Didn't you know that?
Title: Re: Supreme Court rules against the McCanns in damages case.
Post by: Alfie on February 10, 2017, 02:42:08 PM
In that case you are refusing to accept the reality of the situation and are in a state of denial.
No that is NOT the case. I fully accept the reality of the situation, and the fact is I think the reality of the situation stinks, and I don't accept that the judgement is just.
Title: Re: Supreme Court rules against the McCanns in damages case.
Post by: Alfie on February 10, 2017, 02:44:14 PM
What some still fail to comprehend is that this is an 'unsolved case'. The courts have to take this into account in any decision they make so no wonder they are cautious. Amaral might be wrong, then again he might be right, this might be resolved then again it might not. This mystery could endure for ever!
The Supreme Court has ruled that the Appeal Court were correct to overturn the decision of the First Instance Court which concluded that Gonçalo Amaral did not damage the McCanns reputation and so were not entitled to damages.
And if it's proven conclusively that he was wrong, then what?
Title: Re: Supreme Court rules against the McCanns in damages case.
Post by: Mr Gray on February 10, 2017, 02:51:17 PM
Hello Davel. :) You are the reason I kept visiting this site - you're so funny! It's nice to meet you at last.
The Scotland Yard investigation has nothing to do with the Portuguese archival report. Didn't you know that?
If you think I am funny you certainly don't understand the evidence in this case...the SY investigation has read the files that the archiving report was based on and decided the mccanns are not suspects...that suggests they are innocent
Title: Re: Supreme Court rules against the McCanns in damages case.
Post by: Alfie on February 10, 2017, 03:19:36 PM
I’ve been reading this forum for a few years now, but haven’t felt inclined to join in before. But a few people have said that the Supreme Court ruling must mean that Murat is also still a suspect. This isn’t true, as the text of the final archival report does, in fact, completely clear him:
“It is nevertheless certain that through the collected evidence, said suspicions gradually emptied themselves, until the point where any connection of the arguido to the child's disappearance was set aside, which is why, at the end, the archiving of the process will be determined.”
The McCanns did not receive the same unequivocal exoneration:
“We believe that the main damage was caused to the McCann arguidos, who lost the possibility to prove what they have protested since they were constituted arguidos: their innocence towards the fateful event; the investigation was also disturbed, because said facts remain unclarified.”
The Supreme Court hasn’t made any judgement on the McCanns’ guilt or innocence. It merely pointed out that the McCanns cannot use the archival report to claim that they had been categorically cleared of involvement – their arguido status was lifted due to a lack of evidence and nothing could be proved either way.
Part of the McCanns’ case claimed that Amaral's book would have damaged the honour and good name of ‘any innocent person who had been cleared through the shelving of the criminal investigation’. It would have been somewhat remiss of the court not to point out that the archival report had not actually cleared them. The Supreme Court hasn’t ‘gone beyond its remit’ or made a ‘ruling’ or ignored ‘judicial impartiality’ on innocence or guilt – they have clarified a misinterpretation of a legal document by the claimants. It really is as simple as that.
So by all means carry on debating the right-to-free-expression vs. right-not-to-be-defamed angle. But please stop bashing the Portuguese legal system and (deliberately?) misinterpreting the judgement of their Supreme Court. After all, we know you would have been full of praise for them had the judgement gone the other way!
Murat and the McCanns legal status is identical. You can't have one ex-arguido deemed a little less innocent than the other. They either are all innocent or all "not cleared".
Title: Re: Supreme Court rules against the McCanns in damages case.
Post by: ShiningInLuz on February 10, 2017, 03:56:23 PM
Murat and the McCanns legal status is identical. You can't have one ex-arguido deemed a little less innocent than the other. They either are all innocent or all "not cleared".
The legal status of all ex-arguidos is indeed identical, though that tells us armchair viewers next to nothing. As to what OG knows or believes re Mr Murat, well that would take us into speculation land.
The little I know is the OG remit says the McCanns are off-limits. Whilst Mr Murat was re-interviewed as a witness in Dec 2014 and is a free as I am.
It is purely a personal opinion, but I would prefer to be in Mr Murat's legal situation than Kate and Gerry's legal situation.
Title: Re: Supreme Court rules against the McCanns in damages case.
Post by: Mr Gray on February 10, 2017, 04:06:16 PM
The legal status of all ex-arguidos is indeed identical, though that tells us armchair viewers next to nothing. As to what OG knows or believes re Mr Murat, well that would take us into speculation land.
The little I know is the OG remit says the McCanns are off-limits. Whilst Mr Murat was re-interviewed as a witness in Dec 2014 and is a free as I am.
It is purely a personal opinion, but I would prefer to be in Mr Murat's legal situation than Kate and Gerry's legal situation.
why...an opinion without reasoning is pointless...I would say they are both innocent as there is no real evidence against either and their legal status is equal
Title: Re: Supreme Court rules against the McCanns in damages case.
Post by: ShiningInLuz on February 10, 2017, 05:12:59 PM
why...an opinion without reasoning is pointless...I would say they are both innocent as there is no real evidence against either and their legal status is equal
Gordon Bennett.
I said "The legal status of all ex-arguidos is indeed identical".
Think holiday. Much like I am thinking of what to have with our roast pork.
Title: Re: Supreme Court rules against the McCanns in damages case.
Post by: pathfinder73 on February 10, 2017, 05:52:45 PM
Murat and the McCanns legal status is identical. You can't have one ex-arguido deemed a little less innocent than the other. They either are all innocent or all "not cleared".
Robert Murat answered all questions and didn't hide behind lawyers and it wasn't his child that disappeared. Don't you love Irony.
Robert Murat is placed under investigation and interviewed at the offices of the police in Portimão from 10am. He does not wish for the presence of a lawyer. He is the first suspect who will be declared arguido. As such, he benefits from certain rights, one of them being to remain silent. But he does not assert that right and responds to all questions put to him. Despite obvious nervousness, his statements are clear and precise. (TOTL)
Title: Re: Supreme Court rules against the McCanns in damages case.
Post by: ferryman on February 10, 2017, 06:06:05 PM
Robert Murat answered all questions and didn't hide behind lawyers and it wasn't his child that disappeared. Don't you love Irony.
Robert Murat is placed under investigation and interviewed at the offices of the police in Portimão from 10am. He does not wish for the presence of a lawyer. He is the first suspect who will be declared arguido. As such, he benefits from certain rights, one of them being to remain silent. But he does not assert that right and responds to all questions put to him. Despite obvious nervousness, his statements are clear and precise. (TOTL)
Ditto Gerry ....
Title: Re: Supreme Court rules against the McCanns in damages case.
Post by: Brietta on February 10, 2017, 06:22:40 PM
What some still fail to comprehend is that this is an 'unsolved case'. The courts have to take this into account in any decision they make so no wonder they are cautious. Amaral might be wrong, then again he might be right, this might be resolved then again it might not. This mystery could endure for ever!
The Supreme Court has ruled that the Appeal Court were correct to overturn the decision of the First Instance Court which concluded that Gonçalo Amaral did not damage the McCanns reputation and so were not entitled to damages.
Lots of cases are unsolved, John. It is fine to theorise and write books 'solving' them.
I have enjoyed reading every word of each Jack the Ripper book 'solving' the mystery and each Jack the Ripper documentary doing the same. I have found most fascinating and plausible while believing every word of each new theory in its turn however preposterous it might be ... and when the next one appears on the shelves, I shall read and believe that one too.
There has been a lot of money made writing Ripper books. But it doesn't matter about named prime suspects because there is no one living who can be damaged by theorising and naming names, even if descendants might be a bit miffed; although in some countries ~ Portugal for instance being one, I believe it is possible to defame and have action taken to protect the dead. Quote "offense to the memory of a deceased person" (art. 185; up to 6 months in prison or a fine of up 240 days). https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Defamation#Portugal
It is an entirely different matter theorising about the active case of a missing child and publishing unfounded allegations about and the naming of the prime suspects who are very much alive and trying to find their missing child. Amaral has proclaimed himself judge and jury in a case in which monumental police errors were made initially. It was also a case he was responsible for coordinating. There indeed is a man with an axe to grind.
In my opinion Portugal has acted indecently in very many aspects of Madeleine McCann’s case none more so than the tolerated declaration of death without any proof whatsoever. Although senior judges reflecting and reinforcing the ramblings of the opinions voiced on many sceptic blog sites perhaps ranks close.
However it is an utter and absolute nonsense for judges in a civil court to take it upon themselves to voice an opinion on a criminal case in which they have no locus … one in which they have stated that to be the case.
Their statement at the start of their judgement will not absolve them of the furore they have instigated by voicing an opinion detrimental to one of the parties in McCann v Amaral. The proof of that may well be revealed should the McCanns decide to take their case to a competent court.
Title: Re: Supreme Court rules against the McCanns in damages case.
Post by: Robittybob1 on February 10, 2017, 06:38:54 PM
The archiving dispatch was written by two public prosecutors who passed it to the AG the same day. His office issued a press release telling what it said;
By the dispatch of today’s date (21.07.2008 ) issued by the two magistrates of the Public Ministry competent in the case, it was decided that the inquiry relating to the disappearance of the minor Madeleine McCann will be archived due to insufficient proof of any crime having been perpetrated by the arguidos. https://hypocriteandliar.wordpress.com/tag/gerry-and-kate-mccann/
Someone's translation is wrong.
"Insufficient proof" can not really be translated as "no evidence" . It seems the Supreme Court was using your translation.
Title: Re: Supreme Court rules against the McCanns in damages case.
Post by: G-Unit on February 10, 2017, 06:53:54 PM
You certainly have nailed your colours to the mast.
Repeat what he did say then if you know for certain please. He seems to have said many things but I suppose it is what he said in his book and his documentary and on TV that is in question.
Title: Re: Supreme Court rules against the McCanns in damages case.
Post by: Robittybob1 on February 10, 2017, 07:08:48 PM
Under the laws that give you freedom of expression are you allowed to call someone a child killer without any evidence? That was a general question. Amaral might not have said those words exactly, but you would have to read his book for a clue.
Brietta has given her version of what Amaral says "Amaral wrote a book claiming that Madeleine McCann died in the apartment and her parents were involved in her death and disposed of her remains. Not content with writing about them and making a career on Portuguese chat shows capitalising on his unproven and unprovable theory." http://miscarriageofjustice.co/index.php?topic=7933.msg382681#msg382681
Title: Re: Supreme Court rules against the McCanns in damages case.
Post by: stephen25000 on February 10, 2017, 07:10:55 PM
But he claims it is a fact, or will become a fact, which implies to me it is not just a theory.
Repeat what he did say then if you know for certain please. He seems to have said many things but I suppose it is what he said in his book and his documentary and on TV that is in question.
Read his book.
Title: Re: Supreme Court rules against the McCanns in damages case.
Post by: stephen25000 on February 10, 2017, 07:12:13 PM
Brietta has given her version of what Amaral says "Amaral wrote a book claiming that Madeleine McCann died in the apartment and her parents were involved in her death and disposed of her remains. Not content with writing about them and making a career on Portuguese chat shows capitalising on his unproven and unprovable theory." http://miscarriageofjustice.co/index.php?topic=7933.msg382681#msg382681
Brietta's version of events or book is irrelevant.
Title: Re: Supreme Court rules against the McCanns in damages case.
Post by: Robittybob1 on February 10, 2017, 07:14:49 PM
Brietta has given her version of what Amaral says "Amaral wrote a book claiming that Madeleine McCann died in the apartment and her parents were involved in her death and disposed of her remains. Not content with writing about them and making a career on Portuguese chat shows capitalising on his unproven and unprovable theory." http://miscarriageofjustice.co/index.php?topic=7933.msg382681#msg382681
Do the laws relating to freedom of expression allow you to make claims like this without evidence?
Title: Re: Supreme Court rules against the McCanns in damages case.
Post by: stephen25000 on February 10, 2017, 07:35:00 PM
The police are allowed to have their lines of inquiry, but Amaral tries to claim that these will become facts.
Amaral never said they 'dun it' he couldn't, he had no hard evidence, but he was involved with the investigation so he had alot more knowledge about the goings on that you and Brietta AND the McCANNS ( who, incidentally tried to stop the files from going public I believe).. dems de facts.
Title: Re: Supreme Court rules against the McCanns in damages case.
Post by: Robittybob1 on February 10, 2017, 08:25:11 PM
Has anyone worked out where these documentaries are? "71. The claimants Kate McCann and Gerald McCann, in collaboration with the British television station Channel 4, made a documentary about the disappearance of their daughter, entitled Still missing Madeleine, lasting 60 '.
74. The documentary SMM, translated Maddie, Two Years of Anguish, was broadcast by SIC on 12.05.2009."
Title: Re: Supreme Court rules against the McCanns in damages case.
Post by: John on February 11, 2017, 12:05:12 AM
Members are reminded not to quote allegations from Mr Amaral's book as doing so contravenes our rules on defamation.
Title: Re: Supreme Court rules against the McCanns in damages case.
Post by: Alice Purjorick on February 11, 2017, 12:16:25 AM
Amaral never said they 'dun it' he couldn't, he had no hard evidence, but he was involved with the investigation so he had alot more knowledge about the goings on that you and Brietta AND the McCANNS ( who, incidentally tried to stop the files from going public I believe).. dems de facts.
This is from the judgement: "However, even in the filing order serious reservations are raised as to the likelihood of the allegation that Madeleine had been abducted. Taking into account the doubts raised by the Jane Tanner/Kate McCann version.
Those doubts that the investigation intended to see clarified by the reconstitution of the events mentioned in the closing dispatch, an initiative however that was made unfeasible by the witnesses' failure to appear after being summoned to".
Title: Re: Supreme Court rules against the McCanns in damages case.
Post by: misty on February 11, 2017, 12:46:46 AM
This is from the judgement: "However, even in the filing order serious reservations are raised as to the likelihood of the allegation that Madeleine had been abducted. Taking into account the doubts raised by the Jane Tanner/Kate McCann version.
Those doubts that the investigation intended to see clarified by the reconstitution of the events mentioned in the closing dispatch, an initiative however that was made unfeasible by the witnesses' failure to appear after being summoned to".
What has the failure of witnesses to attend a reconstruction got to do with the Supreme Court's assessment of the defendant's right to freedom of expression about the plaintiffs?
Title: Re: Supreme Court rules against the McCanns in damages case.
Post by: Robittybob1 on February 11, 2017, 01:33:26 AM
This is from the judgement: "However, even in the filing order serious reservations are raised as to the likelihood of the allegation that Madeleine had been abducted. Taking into account the doubts raised by the Jane Tanner/Kate McCann version.
Those doubts that the investigation intended to see clarified by the reconstitution of the events mentioned in the closing dispatch, an initiative however that was made unfeasible by the witnesses' failure to appear after being summoned to".
Was Kate asked to attend? So why does the SC make the McCanns suffer for Jez Wilkins' reluctance to attend.
What was the Jane Tanner/Kate McCann version? Kate had no idea of what Jane saw.
Title: Re: Supreme Court rules against the McCanns in damages case.
Post by: Brietta on February 11, 2017, 02:43:59 AM
It is really extraordinary that the word of a convicted torturer and the rights of a convicted perjurer have overridden the rights in the opinion of the Portuguese judiciary of people who have no criminal convictions to their name.
The appeal court judges are not ignorant of European Human Rights Law. They have referred to it in their judgement. They have merely chosen to treat it with contempt.
Quote Two chief inspectors of the PJ - (One of whom is Tavares de Almeida, author of the interim report) - today were sentenced sentenced to two and a half years' imprisonment, suspended on payment of a monthly fine in that period, for having tortured a man at DCCB's premises in March 2000. http://expresso.sapo.pt/sociedade/dois-inspetores-da-pj-condenados-por-tortura=f782292
Quote The Judicial Court of Faro yesterday condemned the former coordinator of the Judicial Police (PJ), Gonçalo Amaral (already retired) to a year and a half in prison for false testimony during the investigation of the case Joana, who himself led , And inspector António Nunes Cardoso at two years and three months. Both with suspended sentence due to falsification of document, in which it related the fall in the stairs of Leonor Cipriano, in one of the interrogations in the Directory of Faro. http://www.dn.pt/dossiers/sociedade/caso-joana/noticias/interior/leonor-cipriano-foi-torturada-mas-nao-ha-prova-de-culpados-1241588.html
The freedom of being able to express the opinion that two blameless individuals are guilty of the most heinous offences at the sacrifice of the human rights of those two individuals not to be slandered on National TV, libelled in books and articles at the expense of their right to presumption of innocence, makes a mockery of the Portuguese justice system.
Title: Re: Supreme Court rules against the McCanns in damages case.
Post by: misty on February 11, 2017, 03:25:03 AM
It is really extraordinary that the word of a convicted torturer and the rights of a convicted perjurer have overridden the rights in the opinion of the Portuguese judiciary of people who have no criminal convictions to their name.
The appeal court judges are not ignorant of European Human Rights Law. They have referred to it in their judgement. They have merely chosen to treat it with contempt.
Quote Two chief inspectors of the PJ - (One of whom is Tavares de Almeida, author of the interim report) - today were sentenced sentenced to two and a half years' imprisonment, suspended on payment of a monthly fine in that period, for having tortured a man at DCCB's premises in March 2000. http://expresso.sapo.pt/sociedade/dois-inspetores-da-pj-condenados-por-tortura=f782292
Quote The Judicial Court of Faro yesterday condemned the former coordinator of the Judicial Police (PJ), Gonçalo Amaral (already retired) to a year and a half in prison for false testimony during the investigation of the case Joana, who himself led , And inspector António Nunes Cardoso at two years and three months. Both with suspended sentence due to falsification of document, in which it related the fall in the stairs of Leonor Cipriano, in one of the interrogations in the Directory of Faro. http://www.dn.pt/dossiers/sociedade/caso-joana/noticias/interior/leonor-cipriano-foi-torturada-mas-nao-ha-prova-de-culpados-1241588.html
The freedom of being able to express the opinion that two blameless individuals are guilty of the most heinous offences at the sacrifice of the human rights of those two individuals not to be slandered on National TV, libelled in books and articles at the expense of their right to presumption of innocence, makes a mockery of the Portuguese justice system.
8@??)(
So very true, Brietta - yet so many try to devalue the human rights of the McCanns by disagreeing, blind to the prejudice they cling to in their own minds.
Title: Re: Supreme Court rules against the McCanns in damages case.
Post by: stephen25000 on February 11, 2017, 05:42:02 AM
It is really extraordinary that the word of a convicted torturer and the rights of a convicted perjurer have overridden the rights in the opinion of the Portuguese judiciary of people who have no criminal convictions to their name.
The appeal court judges are not ignorant of European Human Rights Law. They have referred to it in their judgement. They have merely chosen to treat it with contempt.
Quote Two chief inspectors of the PJ - (One of whom is Tavares de Almeida, author of the interim report) - today were sentenced sentenced to two and a half years' imprisonment, suspended on payment of a monthly fine in that period, for having tortured a man at DCCB's premises in March 2000. http://expresso.sapo.pt/sociedade/dois-inspetores-da-pj-condenados-por-tortura=f782292
Quote The Judicial Court of Faro yesterday condemned the former coordinator of the Judicial Police (PJ), Gonçalo Amaral (already retired) to a year and a half in prison for false testimony during the investigation of the case Joana, who himself led , And inspector António Nunes Cardoso at two years and three months. Both with suspended sentence due to falsification of document, in which it related the fall in the stairs of Leonor Cipriano, in one of the interrogations in the Directory of Faro. http://www.dn.pt/dossiers/sociedade/caso-joana/noticias/interior/leonor-cipriano-foi-torturada-mas-nao-ha-prova-de-culpados-1241588.html
The freedom of being able to express the opinion that two blameless individuals are guilty of the most heinous offences at the sacrifice of the human rights of those two individuals not to be slandered on National TV, libelled in books and articles at the expense of their right to presumption of innocence, makes a mockery of the Portuguese justice system.
The Mccann's are far from blameless.
Their actions instigated this case, and to date, no other party has been found to be involved.
Likewise, as per normal, I see no indication from you whatsoever that the Mccann's did anything wrong, when clearly and undeniably they did.
Title: Re: Supreme Court rules against the McCanns in damages case.
Post by: carlymichelle on February 11, 2017, 05:45:31 AM
I suggest you refer back to the Leveson inquiry, which has been done on this forum, and the admittance of Kate Mccann.
You certainly will not silence my opinion, whether on here or elsewhere.
You don't seem to read posts properly It's your opinion and imo it's ridiculous You also need to look at what was said at Levenson You've got that wrong as well
Title: Re: Supreme Court rules against the McCanns in damages case.
Post by: stephen25000 on February 11, 2017, 10:45:14 AM
You don't seem to read posts properly It's your opinion and imo it's ridiculous You also need to look at what was said at Levenson You've got that wrong as well
I read Levenson, and the comments made by Kate Mccann in reference to Michael Wright.
...and your opinion is irrelevant.
Title: Re: Supreme Court rules against the McCanns in damages case.
Post by: Mr Gray on February 11, 2017, 10:47:56 AM
I read Levenson, and the comments made by Kate Mccann in reference to Michael Wright.
...and your opinion is irrelevant.
Title: Re: Supreme Court rules against the McCanns in damages case.
Post by: stephen25000 on February 11, 2017, 10:53:21 AM
Meanwhile................
' The ECHR's annual statistics also show that nearly 99.9% of the 1,652 UK cases brought to the court in 2013 were declared inadmissible or struck out. '
' The ECHR's annual statistics also show that nearly 99.9% of the 1,652 UK cases brought to the court in 2013 were declared inadmissible or struck out. '
I suggest you refer back to the Leveson inquiry, which has been done on this forum, and the admittance of Kate Mccann.
You certainly will not silence my opinion, whether on here or elsewhere.
So are you saying Stephen - that if the claim is made that people like yourself are obviously part of a propaganda machine organised by Amaral to go round forums specifically to attack the McCanns and anyone who supports them - that you would find that an acceptable description of your reason for posting? Surely not?
AFAIAC it would be an abuse of your right to express your opinions without being libelled by people making claims that you are part of some organised conspiracy and are following a specific agenda.
I'm surprised that you are allowed to repeatedly make this uncorroberrated allegation about other posters- as IMO it clearly constitutes 'abuse' and is against the rules.
Title: Re: Supreme Court rules against the McCanns in damages case.
Post by: G-Unit on February 11, 2017, 12:06:04 PM
So are you saying Stephen - that if the claim is made that people like yourself are obviously part of a propaganda machine organised by Amaral to go round forums specifically to attack the McCanns and anyone who supports them - that you would find that an acceptable description of your reason for posting? Surely not?
AFAIAC it would be an abuse of your right to express your opinions without being libelled by people making claims that you are part of some organised conspiracy and are following a specific agenda.
I'm surprised that you are allowed to repeatedly make this uncorroberrated allegation about other posters- as IMO it clearly constitutes 'abuse' and is against the rules.
I have seen the same (and worse) accusations made toward 'sceptics' and they have been allowed to stand.
Title: Re: Supreme Court rules against the McCanns in damages case.
Post by: stephen25000 on February 11, 2017, 12:06:51 PM
So are you saying Stephen - that if the claim is made that people like yourself are obviously part of a propaganda machine organised by Amaral to go round forums specifically to attack the McCanns and anyone who supports them - that you would find that an acceptable description of your reason for posting? Surely not?
AFAIAC it would be an abuse of your right to express your opinions without being libelled by people making claims that you are part of some organised conspiracy and are following a specific agenda.
I'm surprised that you are allowed to repeatedly make this uncorroberrated allegation about other posters- as IMO it clearly constitutes 'abuse' and is against the rules.
Who said it was a conspiracy.
Meanwhile , what did Kate Mccann say at the Leveson Inquiry.
Any guests can read around the internet and judge as to whether there is an active group online backing the Mccanns.
Title: Re: Supreme Court rules against the McCanns in damages case.
Post by: Benice on February 11, 2017, 12:24:07 PM
What has the failure of witnesses to attend a reconstruction got to do with the Supreme Court's assessment of the defendant's right to freedom of expression about the plaintiffs?
Dunno! did I say it had? It forms part of the 76 page judgement. Take it up with the Supreme Court if you don't like it.
Title: Re: Supreme Court rules against the McCanns in damages case.
Post by: Benice on February 11, 2017, 12:48:24 PM
Meanwhile , what did Kate Mccann say at the Leveson Inquiry.
Any guests can read around the internet and judge as to whether there is an active group online backing the Mccanns.
P.S. Even if my opinion is removed here, it will still be posted elsewhere.
Considering the large number of misinformed idiots and 'nutters' attracted by this case, (but thankfully not allowed to post here) - then it would be unwise of the McCanns not to have someone keeping an eye out for anything that might constitute a danger to their family.
My objection is to your repeated allegations that posters on this forum are part of a McCann-led propaganda machine. Unless you can prove that with evidence then you should stop doing it. Peddling untruths about other posters is against the rules.
Title: Re: Supreme Court rules against the McCanns in damages case.
Post by: Mr Gray on February 11, 2017, 02:14:03 PM
Considering the large number of misinformed idiots and 'nutters' attracted by this case, (but thankfully not allowed to post here) - then it would be unwise of the McCanns not to have someone keeping an eye out for anything that might constitute a danger to their family.
My objection is to your repeated allegations that posters on this forum are part of a McCann-led propaganda machine. Unless you can prove that with evidence then you should stop doing it. Peddling untruths about other posters is against the rules.
It is my opinion.
McCann supporters have made comments on this forum as to why I post.
Title: Re: Supreme Court rules against the McCanns in damages case.
Post by: xtina on February 11, 2017, 02:38:30 PM
Right. So that's it then. We might as well all go home. But I can't see that happening any time soon.
well that's what i am doing ..........feel as if its as far as i can go ...
all i ever wanted was justice ...and some sort of equal playing field ...[were the mccs don't have it all there own way
i can't stand anymore of associating with the pro posters on here .who insult ridicule and make the most .........t posts ...with no proof of abduction ...all in the name of empathy ....for the mccs ....asif]
G A got his justice .....hopefully will carry on fighting for maddies....
instead of fighting G A ...they should have took a lie detector test...you would have thought first option ...
in my dreams ......i hope the Macs will be re interviewed........and then we will see
and have to answer all the unanswered questions and inconsistency's
the second book of G A to hopefully reveal more.
whatever would they have done without that fund ....in the name of maddie...
seems maddie........ helped protect them .....pity they didn't protect maddie ...
to all my c/o posters on here ...Adios
Title: Re: Supreme Court rules against the McCanns in damages case.
Post by: stephen25000 on February 11, 2017, 02:47:11 PM
well that's what i am doing ..........feel as if its as far as i can go ...
all i ever wanted was justice ...and some sort of equal playing field ...[were the mccs don't have it all there own way
i can't stand anymore of associating with the pro posters on here .who insult ridicule and make the most .........t posts ...with no proof of abduction ...all in the name of empathy ....for the mccs ....asif]
G A got his justice .....hopefully will carry on fighting for maddies....
instead of fighting G A ...they should have took a lie detector test...you would have thought first option ...
in my dreams ......i hope the Macs will be re interviewed........and then we will see
and have to answer all the unanswered questions and inconsistency's
the second book of G A to hopefully reveal more.
whatever would they have done without that fund ....in the name of maddie...
seems maddie........ helped protect them .....pity they didn't protect maddie ...
to all my c/o posters on here ...Adios
You will be missed Xtina by those with an independent view, and ultimately very capable of seeing through the McCann's.
However, never say never.
Best wishes. 8((()*/ 8((()*/ 8((()*/
Title: Re: Supreme Court rules against the McCanns in damages case.
Post by: Alice Purjorick on February 11, 2017, 03:00:44 PM
well that's what i am doing ..........feel as if its as far as i can go ...
all i ever wanted was justice ...and some sort of equal playing field ...[were the mccs don't have it all there own way
i can't stand anymore of associating with the pro posters on here .who insult ridicule and make the most .........t posts ...with no proof of abduction ...all in the name of empathy ....for the mccs ....asif]
G A got his justice .....hopefully will carry on fighting for maddies....
instead of fighting G A ...they should have took a lie detector test...you would have thought first option ...
in my dreams ......i hope the Macs will be re interviewed........and then we will see
and have to answer all the unanswered questions and inconsistency's
the second book of G A to hopefully reveal more.
whatever would they have done without that fund ....in the name of maddie...
seems maddie........ helped protect them .....pity they didn't protect maddie ...
to all my c/o posters on here ...Adios
Take care. x
Title: Re: Supreme Court rules against the McCanns in damages case.
Post by: faithlilly on February 11, 2017, 03:54:47 PM
well that's what i am doing ..........feel as if its as far as i can go ...
all i ever wanted was justice ...and some sort of equal playing field ...[were the mccs don't have it all there own way
i can't stand anymore of associating with the pro posters on here .who insult ridicule and make the most .........t posts ...with no proof of abduction ...all in the name of empathy ....for the mccs ....asif]
G A got his justice .....hopefully will carry on fighting for maddies....
instead of fighting G A ...they should have took a lie detector test...you would have thought first option ...
in my dreams ......i hope the Macs will be re interviewed........and then we will see
and have to answer all the unanswered questions and inconsistency's
the second book of G A to hopefully reveal more.
whatever would they have done without that fund ....in the name of maddie...
seems maddie........ helped protect them .....pity they didn't protect maddie ...
to all my c/o posters on here ...Adios
Sorry that you feel compelled to leave Xtina. Good luck in the future.
Title: Re: Supreme Court rules against the McCanns in damages case.
Post by: Mr Gray on February 11, 2017, 04:49:00 PM
well that's what i am doing ..........feel as if its as far as i can go ...
all i ever wanted was justice ...and some sort of equal playing field ...[were the mccs don't have it all there own way
i can't stand anymore of associating with the pro posters on here .who insult ridicule and make the most .........t posts ...with no proof of abduction ...all in the name of empathy ....for the mccs ....asif]
G A got his justice .....hopefully will carry on fighting for maddies....
instead of fighting G A ...they should have took a lie detector test...you would have thought first option ...
in my dreams ......i hope the Macs will be re interviewed........and then we will see
and have to answer all the unanswered questions and inconsistency's
the second book of G A to hopefully reveal more.
whatever would they have done without that fund ....in the name of maddie...
seems maddie........ helped protect them .....pity they didn't protect maddie ...
to all my c/o posters on here ...Adios
If they had taken and passed the lie detector I doubt very much you would have accepted the result Lie detectors are not reliable
Title: Re: Supreme Court rules against the McCanns in damages case.
Post by: Robittybob1 on February 11, 2017, 05:11:13 PM
So are you saying Stephen - that if the claim is made that people like yourself are obviously part of a propaganda machine organised by Amaral to go round forums specifically to attack the McCanns and anyone who supports them - that you would find that an acceptable description of your reason for posting? Surely not?
AFAIAC it would be an abuse of your right to express your opinions without being libelled by people making claims that you are part of some organised conspiracy and are following a specific agenda.
I'm surprised that you are allowed to repeatedly make this uncorroberrated allegation about other posters- as IMO it clearly constitutes 'abuse' and is against the rules.
Agh!
I wish I had your diplomacy, Benice ....
Title: Re: Supreme Court rules against the McCanns in damages case.
Post by: stephen25000 on February 11, 2017, 08:00:08 PM
"Given what has been said, the request of review is denied and the appealed judgement confirmed".
Now that is interesting.
I find this even more disgusting "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."
Title: Re: Supreme Court rules against the McCanns in damages case.
Post by: Robittybob1 on February 12, 2017, 01:15:05 AM
If there is anything to go to the ECHR about would be this presumption of innocence issue.
Title: Re: Supreme Court rules against the McCanns in damages case.
Post by: Mr Gray on February 12, 2017, 01:57:59 AM
If there is anything to go to the ECHR about would be this presumption of innocence issue.
Which criminal offence were the McCanns charged with then?
ECHR Article 6:2
Everyone charged with a criminal offence shall be presumed innocent until proved guilty according to law.
UDHR Article 11
Everyone charged with a penal offence has the right to be presumed innocent until proved guilty according to law in a public trial at which he has had all the guarantees necessary for his defence.
Title: Re: Supreme Court rules against the McCanns in damages case.
Post by: Robittybob1 on February 12, 2017, 10:06:15 AM
Which criminal offence were the McCanns charged with then?
ECHR Article 6:2
Everyone charged with a criminal offence shall be presumed innocent until proved guilty according to law.
UDHR Article 11
Everyone charged with a penal offence has the right to be presumed innocent until proved guilty according to law in a public trial at which he has had all the guarantees necessary for his defence.
So that presumption of innocence doesn't cover you if you are not charged!
Title: Re: Supreme Court rules against the McCanns in damages case.
Post by: Alfie on February 12, 2017, 10:06:21 AM
Which criminal offence were the McCanns charged with then?
ECHR Article 6:2
Everyone charged with a criminal offence shall be presumed innocent until proved guilty according to law.
UDHR Article 11
Everyone charged with a penal offence has the right to be presumed innocent until proved guilty according to law in a public trial at which he has had all the guarantees necessary for his defence.
So you're only entitled to be presumed innocent if you have been charged, otherwise you're fair game for any old accusation?
Title: Re: Supreme Court rules against the McCanns in damages case.
Post by: stephen25000 on February 12, 2017, 10:08:55 AM
You need to get a grip on reality bob, and study the judgement.
The judgement is so wrong it is a joke, a bad joke. They say that Tavares made a statement, but that was all speculation and the evidence doesn't support any of it. So when Amaral quotes Tavares its OK! They are allowed to have working hypotheses but Amaral was retired so he should have kept out of it.
Title: Re: Supreme Court rules against the McCanns in damages case.
Post by: stephen25000 on February 12, 2017, 10:18:28 AM
The judgement is so wrong it is a joke, a bad joke. They say that Tavares made a statement, but that was all speculation and the evidence doesn't support any of it. So when Amaral quotes Tavares it OK! They are allowed to have working hypotheses but Amaral was retired so he should have kept out of it.
No, the juidgement was based on law.
Get over it.
So what is 'we' going to do about it bob ? 8)-)))
Title: Re: Supreme Court rules against the McCanns in damages case.
Post by: Robittybob1 on February 12, 2017, 10:21:05 AM
If there is anything to go to the ECHR about would be this presumption of innocence issue.
Page 68 of the judgement even quotes the ECHR.
Quote
First of all it has to be said that the principle of the presumption of innocence (art. 32°-2 of the CRP, 11°-1 of the UDHR and 6°-2 of the European Convention on the Human Rights) is a rule of treatment to be given to the arguido (formal suspect) throughout the judicial criminal process.
Accordingly, this principle can not be construed as a restriction on public discussion of potentially criminal facts, despite that public bodies should, in their communications, resort to the necessary reserve to avoid creating the conviction that the arguido is in fact guilty (Cf. Konstas vs Greece of 28/11/ 11 (n° 053466/071).
That referred principle may even impose, on the threshold of criminal proceedings, respect for an absolutory penal decision or even for a decision of archiving by the judicial authorities involved in subsequent proceedings (Allen vs United-Kingdom, Of 12/7/2013, n° 1025424/0991).
Nevertheless, the Court of Justice of the European Union has decided that the principle of presumption of innocence does not apply to subsequent civil proceedings (mainly compensatory) to criminal proceedings, at risk of depriving the victim of her own right to accede to the courts and to be compensated (Cf. the judgements in Y vs Norvvay (56568/00) of 11/ 5/2003 and Diacendo vs Italy (124/04) of 05/07/2012).
As Jónatas Machado points out, in Freedom of Expression, Public Interest and Public Figures and Equalities, BFDUC, vol.LXXXV, 2009, p. 91, The presumption of innocence, because it's only a presumption, cannot overcome the search for the truth and the right of citizens to the truth. It cannot as well prevent public criticism and public scrutiny of the functioning of justice. The same happens, furthermore, with the attempt to demonstrate the innocence of a condemned person and thereby to move aside the mark of the conviction. The search for truth, including the truth about justice, has always been one of the main justifications of freedom of expression.
Title: Re: Supreme Court rules against the McCanns in damages case.
Post by: stephen25000 on February 12, 2017, 10:27:39 AM
OH it looks good on the surface. They even say "resort to the necessary reserve to avoid creating the conviction that the arguido is in fact guilty". You can't read Amaral's book and not think he is saying he thinks the McCanns and their friends are guilty. How do they bluff that error away?
Title: Re: Supreme Court rules against the McCanns in damages case.
Post by: stephen25000 on February 12, 2017, 10:28:55 AM
OH it looks good on the surface. They even say "resort to the necessary reserve to avoid creating the conviction that the arguido is in fact guilty". You can't read Amaral's book and not think he is saying he thinks the McCanns and their friends are guilty. How do they bluff that error away?
Are you saying bob, you won't follow and obey the law ?
Title: Re: Supreme Court rules against the McCanns in damages case.
Post by: Robittybob1 on February 12, 2017, 10:30:10 AM
So you're only entitled to be presumed innocent if you have been charged, otherwise you're fair game for any old accusation?
Page 68
First of all it has to be said that the principle of the presumption of innocence (art. 32°-2 of the CRP, 11°-1 of the UDHR and 6°-2 of the European Convention on the Human Rights) is a rule of treatment to be given to the arguido (formal suspect) throughout the judicial criminal process.......
the Court of Justice of the European Union has decided that the principle of presumption of innocence does not apply to subsequent civil proceedings............
The presumption of innocence, because it's only a presumption, cannot overcome the search for the truth and the right of citizens to the truth. It cannot as well prevent public criticism and public scrutiny of the functioning of justice......
Page 69
It must be reminded that, in the present case, the issue isn't the appellants' penal liability, in other words their innocence or their guilt concerning the facts leading to the disappearance of her daughter doesn't have to be appreciated here.
Page 70
But was the freedom of expression of the respondent conditioned by the functions he performed and did those, even when he was retired, impose on him the reserve duty, as was upheld in the first instance sentence and is reaffirmed by the appellants....
Page 71
We therefore consider that freedom of expression does not either have to yield to the invoked functional duty borne by the respondent, reason why his conduct was not illicit in the terms taken into account in the first instance sentence.
Thus we shall have to conclude that, in the present case, prevail the rights of the respondents to freedom of expression and information and to freedom of the press and of the media.
Given what has been said, the request of review is denied and the appealed judgement confirmed.
Costs for the appellants.
Title: Re: Supreme Court rules against the McCanns in damages case.
Post by: Alfie on February 12, 2017, 10:42:56 AM
First of all it has to be said that the principle of the presumption of innocence (art. 32°-2 of the CRP, 11°-1 of the UDHR and 6°-2 of the European Convention on the Human Rights) is a rule of treatment to be given to the arguido (formal suspect) throughout the judicial criminal process.......
the Court of Justice of the European Union has decided that the principle of presumption of innocence does not apply to subsequent civil proceedings............
The presumption of innocence, because it's only a presumption, cannot overcome the search for the truth and the right of citizens to the truth. It cannot as well prevent public criticism and public scrutiny of the functioning of justice......
Page 69
It must be reminded that, in the present case, the issue isn't the appellants' penal liability, in other words their innocence or their guilt concerning the facts leading to the disappearance of her daughter doesn't have to be appreciated here.
Page 70
But was the freedom of expression of the respondent conditioned by the functions he performed and did those, even when he was retired, impose on him the reserve duty, as was upheld in the first instance sentence and is reaffirmed by the appellants....
Page 71
We therefore consider that freedom of expression does not either have to yield to the invoked functional duty borne by the respondent, reason why his conduct was not illicit in the terms taken into account in the first instance sentence.
Thus we shall have to conclude that, in the present case, prevail the rights of the respondents to freedom of expression and information and to freedom of the press and of the media.
Given what has been said, the request of review is denied and the appealed judgement confirmed.
Costs for the appellants.
so I was right then. And on this basis an ex-copper who'd been involved in investigating the alleged sex crimes of Cliff Richard (as an example of someone investigated but never charged) would be allowed to write a best-selling book theorising about all sorts of horrific abuse with precious little evidence and that would be OK, and would cause him no damage.
Title: Re: Supreme Court rules against the McCanns in damages case.
Post by: Robittybob1 on February 12, 2017, 10:47:00 AM
Do you think the McCann case falls under the heading of civil proceedings? "the Court of Justice of the European Union has decided that the principle of presumption of innocence does not apply to subsequent civil proceedings............"
Title: Re: Supreme Court rules against the McCanns in damages case.
Post by: stephen25000 on February 12, 2017, 10:50:40 AM
Do you think the McCann case falls under the heading of civil proceedings? "the Court of Justice of the European Union has decided that the principle of presumption of innocence does not apply to subsequent civil proceedings............"
In 2013, 99.9 % of cases brought to the attention of the E.C.H.R. from the UK, were not accepted or failed.
' The ECHR's annual statistics also show that nearly 99.9% of the 1,652 UK cases brought to the court in 2013 were declared inadmissible or struck out. '
Title: Re: Supreme Court rules against the McCanns in damages case.
Post by: Robittybob1 on February 12, 2017, 10:54:45 AM
' The ECHR's annual statistics also show that nearly 99.9% of the 1,652 UK cases brought to the court in 2013 were declared inadmissible or struck out. '
You didn't answer my query. "Do you think the McCann verses Amaral case falls under the heading of civil proceedings?"
Title: Re: Supreme Court rules against the McCanns in damages case.
Post by: stephen25000 on February 12, 2017, 11:01:14 AM
Your answer lies under the auspices of the case brought by the McCann.
It isn't subject to my opinion bob.
So again, who is the 'we' who is going to contact the Portuguese Supreme Court ?
In civil proceedings there is no question of criminal guilt so no need to presume innocence but in this case Amaral is saying the McCanns are guilty so it must not be a civil matter.
In civil proceedings there is no question of criminal guilt so no need to presume innocence but in this case Amaral is saying the McCanns are guilty so it must not be a civil matter. But that is the step after. It was Amaral stating/ implying the McCanns were guilty that started the civil proceedings.
Whose step after?
Title: Re: Supreme Court rules against the McCanns in damages case.
Post by: G-Unit on February 12, 2017, 01:01:51 PM
In civil proceedings there is no question of criminal guilt so no need to presume innocence but in this case Amaral is saying the McCanns are guilty so it must not be a civil matter. But that is the step after. It was Amaral stating/ implying the McCanns were guilty that started the civil proceedings.
What he said was said in the official case files which anyone could read.
Title: Re: Supreme Court rules against the McCanns in damages case.
Post by: Miss Taken Identity on February 12, 2017, 02:55:46 PM
' The ECHR's annual statistics also show that nearly 99.9% of the 1,652 UK cases brought to the court in 2013 were declared inadmissible or struck out. '
But made a good few bucks for UK eagle legals.. them hoomin rights people playing the money roulette- nothng to do with Justice lol
Title: Re: Supreme Court rules against the McCanns in damages case.
Post by: Robittybob1 on February 12, 2017, 06:13:54 PM
Only said in a report by Tavares de Almeida all based on supposition. There ended up being no facts that supported Tavares in the end.
That was the position of the investigation on 10th September 2007. What followed later is immaterial, although many of the same questions were included in the Archiving dispatch.
Title: Re: Supreme Court rules against the McCanns in damages case.
Post by: Robittybob1 on February 12, 2017, 09:24:58 PM
That was the position of the investigation on 10th September 2007. What followed later is immaterial, although many of the same questions were included in the Archiving dispatch.
You are right it is a matter of understanding the timing of each event not just the outcome.
Title: Re: Supreme Court rules against the McCanns in damages case.
Post by: John on February 13, 2017, 01:37:03 AM
Please be aware that the 75-page Supreme Court Judgement of 31st January 2017 is now available on the forum.
Title: Re: Supreme Court rules against the McCanns in damages case.
Post by: G-Unit on February 14, 2017, 11:16:22 AM
It would appear that the Express labelled people as 'trolls' simply because they used the internet;
INTERNET trolls are funding the legal bills of a shamed Portuguese detective who claimed Madeleine McCann’s parents were behind her disappearance. http://www.express.co.uk/news/uk/574685/Online-trolls-pay-Madeleine-McCann-libel-detective-s-legal-bills-on-eight-year-anniversary
The so-called 'trolls' spotted the potential for a miscarriage of justice if Amaral was unable to appeal, and they were right. Justice was being denied because a man had his assets seized by the opposing party; existing and future income from book sales, half of his pension and a house. What compensation will be seen as proportionate I can't imagine.
Title: Re: Supreme Court rules against the McCanns in damages case.
Post by: Brietta on February 14, 2017, 02:33:07 PM
It would appear that the Express labelled people as 'trolls' simply because they used the internet;
INTERNET trolls are funding the legal bills of a shamed Portuguese detective who claimed Madeleine McCann’s parents were behind her disappearance. http://www.express.co.uk/news/uk/574685/Online-trolls-pay-Madeleine-McCann-libel-detective-s-legal-bills-on-eight-year-anniversary
The so-called 'trolls' spotted the potential for a miscarriage of justice if Amaral was unable to appeal, and they were right. Justice was being denied because a man had his assets seized by the opposing party; existing and future income from book sales, half of his pension and a house. What compensation will be seen as proportionate I can't imagine.
Please bear in mind that the McCanns had nothing to do with half Amaral's pension being arrested ... that was in relation to unpaid taxes to the Portuguese State.
His house was actually his brother's house as the Portuguese courts decided in a case brought against Amaral for fraud.
Neither does taking legal action for defamation comes cheap ... he did lose his case against the Cipriano lawyer.
Divorce actions don't come cheap either ... and there was a divorce prior to his second marriage.
The McCanns sued because of the book he wrote exploiting their missing daughter and which defamed them.
Title: Re: Supreme Court rules against the McCanns in damages case.
Post by: jassi on February 14, 2017, 02:40:08 PM
Please bear in mind that the McCanns had nothing to do with half Amaral's pension being arrested ... that was in relation to unpaid taxes to the Portuguese State.
His house was actually his brother's house as the Portuguese courts decided in a case brought against Amaral for fraud.
Neither does taking legal action for defamation comes cheap ... he did lose his case against the Cipriano lawyer.
Divorce actions don't come cheap either ... and there was a divorce prior to his second marriage.
The McCanns sued because of the book he wrote exploiting their missing daughter and which defamed them.
At least that's what they thought. How wrong they were.
Title: Re: Supreme Court rules against the McCanns in damages case.
Post by: Brietta on February 14, 2017, 02:46:27 PM
At least that's what they thought. How wrong they were.
If you would be content not to defend your honour against heinous accusations ... that is for you. Madeleine's right to a presumption of life and theirs to a presumption of innocence was of import to them ... I can see why it is, if you can't that again is for you.
Title: Re: Supreme Court rules against the McCanns in damages case.
Post by: slartibartfast on February 14, 2017, 02:56:13 PM
If you would be content not to defend your honour against heinous accusations ... that is for you. Madeleine's right to a presumption of life and theirs to a presumption of innocence was of import to them ... I can see why it is, if you can't that again is for you.
Quote
“When you tear out a man's tongue, you are not proving him a liar, you're only telling the world that you fear what he might say.”
Title: Re: Supreme Court rules against the McCanns in damages case.
Post by: G-Unit on February 14, 2017, 03:33:33 PM
Please bear in mind that the McCanns had nothing to do with half Amaral's pension being arrested ... that was in relation to unpaid taxes to the Portuguese State.
His house was actually his brother's house as the Portuguese courts decided in a case brought against Amaral for fraud.
Neither does taking legal action for defamation comes cheap ... he did lose his case against the Cipriano lawyer.
Divorce actions don't come cheap either ... and there was a divorce prior to his second marriage.
The McCanns sued because of the book he wrote exploiting their missing daughter and which defamed them.
That (bolded) all seems to emanate from an internet poster who was unable to provide cites. Are you able to provide cites?
The McCanns weren't defamed according to two Courts in Portugal, whatever they thought.
Title: Re: Supreme Court rules against the McCanns in damages case.
Post by: ChloeR on February 14, 2017, 03:49:23 PM
I do not completely agree with Amaral/PJs theory on this, mainly as my views change all the time, though I do think his theory is about as likely as an abductor entering the apartment between checks and taking Madeleine without any evidence or witnesses. However, I am glad Amaral was given the opportunity to actually defend himself. I found the way this was brought about to be horrendous, freezing his assets and making it unlikely he could afford a defense. Whatever your views on this case, surely you agree that everyone should be entitled to a defense and cases should never be won simply by whoever has the cash to do so.
I find the part about the McCanns not being cleared..interesting. I do not think this is the court suggesting guilt, and I think the only reason this part was included was because the McCanns have shouted from the rooftops that they were indeed cleared due to the shelving when it was not the case..as such it was relevant in the ruling.
I still find it peculiar that they went after Amaral yet did not attempt to sue the people who have ripped them off throughout this whole ordeal. Hundreds of thousands of pounds from the fund paid into dodgy private detective agencies and thats apparently fine? Very strange.
All in all, I feel this ruling is correct. Even if I didn't, who am I to go against the decision of the Supreme Court. they obviously know the law better than I do.
Title: Re: Supreme Court rules against the McCanns in damages case.
Post by: Robittybob1 on February 14, 2017, 06:00:54 PM
All in all, I feel this ruling is correct. Even if I didn't, who am I to go against the decision of the Supreme Court. they obviously know the law better than I do.
No they don't. Just remember that an accused is innocent till proven guilty and you win.
Title: Re: Supreme Court rules against the McCanns in damages case.
Post by: stephen25000 on February 14, 2017, 06:03:02 PM
What came first the chicken or the egg? If you don't look you won't find what you are (supposed to be) looking for. U2 song - I haven't found what I'm looking for.
Title: Re: Supreme Court rules against the McCanns in damages case.
Post by: stephen25000 on February 14, 2017, 06:13:52 PM
What came first the chicken or the egg? If you don't look you won't find what you are (supposed to be) looking for. U2 song - I haven't found what I'm looking for.
How about some common sense, rather than your blind devotion.
Title: Re: Supreme Court rules against the McCanns in damages case.
Post by: jassi on February 14, 2017, 06:15:01 PM
What came first the chicken or the egg? If you don't look you won't find what you are (supposed to be) looking for. U2 song - I haven't found what I'm looking for.
Will you recognise it if you do ?
Title: Re: Supreme Court rules against the McCanns in damages case.
Post by: Robittybob1 on February 14, 2017, 06:18:53 PM
Please bear in mind that the McCanns had nothing to do with half Amaral's pension being arrested ... that was in relation to unpaid taxes to the Portuguese State.
His house was actually his brother's house as the Portuguese courts decided in a case brought against Amaral for fraud.
Neither does taking legal action for defamation comes cheap ... he did lose his case against the Cipriano lawyer.
Divorce actions don't come cheap either ... and there was a divorce prior to his second marriage.
The McCanns sued because of the book he wrote exploiting their missing daughter and which defamed them.
Please provide the proof for your affirmations in paragraphs 1 and 2. Marcos Aragão Correio won the libel case because the judge ruled that it was normal that he believe everything his client, Leonor Cipriano, told him, even though they were lies.
Title: Re: Supreme Court rules against the McCanns in damages case.
Post by: Brietta on February 14, 2017, 09:44:50 PM
Please provide the proof for your affirmations in paragraphs 1 and 2. Marcos Aragão Correio won the libel case because the judge ruled that it was normal that he believe everything his client, Leonor Cipriano, told him, even though they were lies.
Court is with Jaguar de Gonçalo Amaral
28.10.2009 às 22h35
The Lisbon Civil Court, which this week ordered the arrest of the copyright of Gonçalo Amaral's book on the disappearance of Madeleine McCann, as well as the documentary that followed, considers that the sole proprietorship created by the former coordinator of the PJ may allow Receive and make disappear the proceeds that are personally intended for the sale of books and videos.
Therefore, following the McCann family's claim for compensation, he decided through a precautionary procedure to arrest Amaral's share in the company, one-third of his salary as a manager and even the Jaguar that the former police officer leads - but that belongs to To the firm.
The car, with a displacement of 2700cc and a price of around 70,000 euros, was bought in May and registered on behalf of the company Gonçalo Amaral Unipessoal Lda., With a share capital of 5000 euros. The company, established in November last year, offers consultancy, studies and analysis in the area of criminal investigation and specializes in the dissemination, promotion and communication of technical works.
Notices to publishers who published the book "Maddie - The Truth of Lies" followed earlier in the week to several countries in Europe: Italy, Holland, Denmark, Germany, Spain and France. The publisher Guerra & Paz, (which published the book in Portugal), Presslivre (owner of "Correio da Manhã" where Amaral has a weekly chronicle), Valentim de Carvalho and TVI were also notified of the arrest of the copyright Are due to the former PJ coordinator until a final decision is reached in the ongoing process.
Contacted by Expresso, Gonçalo Amaral declined to comment on the decision of the Civil Court, referring his position to a press release issued on Wednesday. In that document, the man who investigated the disappearance of Madeleine McCann fears "being unable to defend his reasons in court" and admits to face "constraints on his own defense."
Kate and Gerry McCann, who were indicted in the course of the investigation, and the three youngest children, Sean and Amelie and Madeleine, are the plaintiffs in the ongoing civil court case. They demand the former PJ inspector compensation of € 1.2 million for defamation, due to "continuous and gross" statements about the investigation of the 2007 case.
However, according to the assessment made by the court, the estate of Gonçalo Amaral does not provide sufficient guarantees for payment in case of conviction. Olhão's house - which she bought with her wife in 2002 with a loan from the BIC but is registered only in her name - was arrested in 2005 due to a debt of around 130 thousand euros.
A year later, the National Treasury registered an attachment on the house as guarantee of payment of 16900 euros. Finally, two years ago, it was BES (to which BIC belongs now) to file an executive action against the couple to collect more than 300,000 euros - a new attachment. The book "Maddie - The truth of the Lie" was released in July 2008 and in the following two months, until the end of September, it had 12 editions, or 120,000 copies. However, in September, also by court decision, its sale had already been banned.
Gonçalo Amaral retired from the Judicial Police in June last year, after 26 years of service. At the time, he said he was leaving to have "full freedom of expression" after being removed months earlier from the investigation into the disappearance of the English child due to statements made to the media. Currently, Amaral receives a pension for early retirement of 2039 euros. The investigation into the case was closed in June 2008, without any liability being cleared from the parents of the three-year-old English girl who disappeared on 3 May 2007 in Praia da Luz.
The McCann family requires Gonçalo Amaral to pay damages of 1.2 million euros due to the book The Lisbon Civil Court banned in September the commercialization of "Maddie - The truth of the lie" This week the publishers who published the book and the entities with whom the former PJ coordinator collaborated were notified of the seizure of the copyright allocations Text published in the edition of the Express of October 24, 2009 http://expresso.sapo.pt/arquivo/tribunal-fica-com-jaguar-de-goncalo-amaral=f544234
The financial mess Amaral was in long predated Madeleine McCann's disappearance in 2007 ~ I can post up the court transcript if you would like for the case taken out against him.
The pension money was not sequestered for the McCann trial ... it was owed to the Portuguese State because of non payment of taxes.
In other words the myth that the McCanns are responsible for Amaral's financial predicament are absolutely wrong and misguided ... the person responsible is the man himself. Unfortunately as easy as it is for some to think the worst of the McCanns it seems there is a blockage of denial for any critical truth providing evidence of an Amaral who they cannot perceive of as less than perfect.
Title: Re: Supreme Court rules against the McCanns in damages case.
Post by: G-Unit on February 15, 2017, 12:46:11 AM
Nowhere in that article does it say that the house was not seized, I think.
But the property, in millionaires’ development Cerro Azul, near the town of Olhao, has been seized as an asset by a Lisbon court which last week ruled that Amaral must pay the McCanns 500,000 euros (£357,000) compensation for allegations he made in his book. http://www.express.co.uk/news/uk/574547/Maddie-libel-detective-ruined-Retirement-retreat-seized-cover-McCann-payout
Title: Re: Supreme Court rules against the McCanns in damages case.
Post by: Brietta on February 15, 2017, 12:58:42 AM
Nowhere in that article does it say that the house was not seized, I think.
But the property, in millionaires’ development Cerro Azul, near the town of Olhao, has been seized as an asset by a Lisbon court which last week ruled that Amaral must pay the McCanns 500,000 euros (£357,000) compensation for allegations he made in his book. http://www.express.co.uk/news/uk/574547/Maddie-libel-detective-ruined-Retirement-retreat-seized-cover-McCann-payout
Title: Re: Supreme Court rules against the McCanns in damages case.
Post by: Brietta on February 15, 2017, 01:00:13 AM
José Filipe Nogueira
Lawyer
Honorable Judgeof the Juvenile and Family Court for the District of Seixal
2nd CivilCourt
Process nº 3841/05.9TBSXL
António de Sousa Amaral, resident at Quinta da Mata nº4 3rd left, Corroios, holder of identity card nº 34142109 and bearer of contributor card nº 115780327, divorced, natural of the parish of Torredeita, Viseu county, is thus accessing to the invitation constant of dispatch of pages 64-66, presents, in the terms provided in the nº 3 of article 508º of C.P.C. new initial articulated for implementation of factual elements considered missing, which makes as followed and with the next elements:
1º In the constancy of marriage between the defendant and Isabel Maria Costa Basílio (his former spouse) celebrated a contract of mutual with mortgage with Caixa Geral de Depósitos (a bank) by which gave them the amount of € 2.720.00$00 (€ 13.567.30) with the aim of acquiring by borrowers destined to residential property.
2º As insurance guaranty of payment of mutual agreement mentioned, it was through he mentioned benefits created a mortgage about the urban property which was achieved by them, at the location of Ferreira de Castro street, lot F, 11º at Miratejo, Corroios parish, Seixal county, as presentation 07/310884, Av. 1 legally registered at Conservatory of Building Registration (Cfr. Doc. together with nº 1 with Initial Request of Injunction arrest which is added to these principal records which are here reproduced)
3º Due to lack of fulfillment by those who agreed, not fulfilled the obligations of refund of the amount which assumed before CGD, the same presented in the day 25.06.1996 against those who agreed an executive action to collect the right amount (Cfr. Doc. which is added under nº1 and fully reproduced) which followed it´s terms through 2nd Civil Court of the Court of Seixal county, under the file nº 536/96.
4º In the pendency of the mentioned mortgage execution, the defendant hired, with the author, his brother, which was reduced to a formalized contract of buying / selling celebrated in April 9th 2002, the purchase of the bonded property, being agreed that the price of selling to be paid by the author was equal to the amount that had to be paid to Caixa Geral de Depósitos, while as mortgage creditor (Cfr. Doc.added under nº 4 with Initial Injunction Arrest Request which is added to these main records and which are reproduced)
5º It was agreed, that in the promise contract mentioned, which the defendant promised to sell the property identified in the article 2º which the defendant promised achieved it by the price due to Caixa Geral de Depósitos to allow this to grant the distrate of voluntary mortgage, with the extinction of executive mortgage which – as indicated – was instaured.
6º Later, and at 29th November 2002, by granted attorney in the 2nd notary´s office of Faro, the defendant constitutes his representative the author, granted him powers to, in his name and representation, to concede the promised notary´s document of buying / selling the mentioned property, which both agreed, more stating that the person who ordered – the author here – was allowed to make business with himself and that the mentioned document, by recognizing and declare that it was written in the interest of the mandatory, couldn´t, without permission of this to be revoked or not expired due to death or disqualification of the mandatory, everything in agreement with the article 265, number 3175, number 2, both of Civil code, staying additionally the procurator instaured, fully dismissed of showing bills (Cfr. Doc.together under nº3 of Initial Injunction arrest Request which is added to the main documents here reproduced)
7º Meanwhile, and because the 1st defendant married, at 6 July 2002, with the here 2nd defendant (Cfr. Doc.nº2 which is added and reproduced) expected the author of this authorization expressed for the celebration of promised contract which is about the same promise adjusted at 9th April 2002, permission which the same allowed through declaration certified through notary´s office (Cfr. Doc.together with nº6 of Initial Injunction arrest Request which is added to the main documents here reproduced)
8º In compliance of what has been agreed at the promise contract of buying / selling, which the author proceed to the payment of the value claimed through CGD, the amount of € 59.850.75, value that the author deposited – through check nº 4523338150, through bank account of BCP, in the mutual institution (Cfr.Docs which, under numbers 3 and 4 are together and now reproduced)
9º In the sequence of that deposit / payment, the Caixa Geral de Depósitos granted the distrate of mortgage and extinguished the executive action mentioned in 2º, by uselessness supervening (Cfr. Docs which are under numbers 5 and 6 together now reproduced)
10º The defendant proceed the delivery of the property of the contract buying / selling which the author, delivering the keys, transmitted in favour of the author the possession of the property in price, possession which Because not to jeopardize other´s rights, and in any case the author is not aware, was in good-faith.
11º Following knowledge, of the property´s owner, due to delivery of material through defendant and the keys were and have been symbolic expression, the author, in good-faith, proceed the repairs in the property with the cost of € 8.898.
12º As truth, at the date in which was granted by the defendant to the author the possession of property, this property was in bad shape, whether paints on walls and the floor of several parts of the house, dishes, plumbers, kitchen, bathroom.
13º Such destruction, due to it´s intensity, removed housing conditions.
14º The mentioned repairs, carried through and with the cost of the author, namely electrical devices, locks in the doors, treatment of floor, general paints, new dishes, new bathroom devices, toilets, among others, as it is in the documents, numbers 8 to 20, together with Initial Injunction arrest Request which is added to the main documents here reproduced.
15º The defendant, however, violated the obligations which freely assumed during the celebration of contract.
16º With effect, at the day 26.07.2004, the defendants proceed to the sale of the property, object of that same contract to Patrícia Antunes Mamede, single, adult, resident at Bento de Jesus Caraça street, nº6 2nd right floor, Laranjeiro, Almada, which formalized through writing of both recognized at the notary´s office of Almada, in the sheets 34 to 36 of the several writings book nº 170-M (Cfr.Doc nº7 fully reproduced)
17º Such alienation by the Defendants here came subsequently to be subject to final registration in the competent Conservatory of Registry Office, as registral presentation, made at 22/10/04 in favor of Patricia Antunes Mamede, single, adult, resident at Rua Bento Jesus Caraça, no. 6, 2nd right, Laranjeiro, Almada."
18º It results from the exposed which, with the sale in favor of mentioned Patrícia Antunes Mamede, was definitively not fulfilled the contract which has been celebrated with the author, not being possible to obtain the specific execution of promise contract in the way in which the new owner will be third in good-faith.
19º The 2nd defendant, actual wife of 1st defendant, intervened, also, in the sale of the property made to Patrícia Antunes Mamede.
20º The 2nd defendant also knew that she also previously authorized the sale of the property to the author here, which, as her husband, here 1st defendant, promised the sale.
21º Under the article nº 441º of Civil Code, all amount delivered by the buyer to the person who sold it, presumed that has character.
22º So, being the price paid by the author (as buyer) to the defendant, the character of sign, has the faculty of demanding twice of what used, which is € 59.850.75x2= € 119.701.50
23º To this amount also increases the value used by the author with repairs, corresponding the repairs needed to restore to the property housing conditions, which were at his cost conducted under article nº 216 Civil Code.
24º The repairs conducted by the author, when he was owner legally, through definitive possession of title transmitted through brother, are, indeed, in the juridical concept of “needed repairs”, because it was indispensable to return housing conditions.
25º Such repairs, which should be understood as needed, through which, the author returned housing conditions.
26º Of the legal way it is understood that the concept of housing repairs needed as repairs and costs performed to ensure minimal maintenance / housing conditions, caused such costs.
27º Under article number 1273 ex vi of the article 216, both Civil code, the owner of good-faith (as such the owner of bad-faith) as the right to be compensated, being calculated his compensation in the terms of unjust enrichment.
28º The way the legislator tried to obtain is to avoid illegal enrichment from the owner of the thing at the expenses of it´s owner, being through direct effect of repairs with costs of the author, the property saw increased it´s value more than it costs, which is, € 8.898.
29º Effectively, the defendant cannot benefit from the patently works in the property that were made and fully borne by the author, since this would lead to an enrichment at the expense of impoverishment as provided in the article 473 Civil Code.
30º Moreover, the property having been - as argued above - sold by the defendant to a third party, which was established in its meeting held in good faith, is no longer possibleto proceed to the survey of any of the improvements, and indeed sure would not be configurable to raise the paintings throughout the property, or raise the overhaul of floors, sanitary ware and taps…
31º In fact, it is a evidence that in the price of the property to Patrícia Antunes Mamede was with absolute certain that due to the aspect of the property, in which, following the repairs, she owned the property with the aspect it was found, with the conditions that only through repairs had been returned at the expenses of the author.
32º The 2nd defendant is also responsible by the failure of the contract adjusted with the author and for the debt reclaimed under the article 1691 nº1 a) of the Civil Code, due to her consent to the promised achievement and with agreement through contract, intervened when the property had new owner, violating the contract and permission.
32º So, the action should be judged and the defendants condemned in the request.
33º Preliminary to this action, was decreed the arrest of the property at the Urbanização Cerro Azul lot 53, parish of Quelfes, Olhão county, measure that happened at the 3rd Court of Seixal county under process nº6420/04.4TBSXL
Terms which should the action be judged by proved being the defendants condemned to pay to the author:
a. € 119.701,50, twice the amount that the author used
b. € 8.989,00 refund of the costs used by the author
c. the interest accrued on amounts above from the date of service and effective until full payment.
alternative, and if so do not understand, should the defendants be ordered to compensate the author of the amount of the price, simple, disbursed by him (€ 59.850,75) plus the value of the repairs (€ 9.898), where everything plus the interest accrued onamounts above from the date of service and effective until full payment.
it nevertheless pay the costs of this litigation.
board: seven copies legal documents and
value: € 129.599,50
Title: Re: Supreme Court rules against the McCanns in damages case.
Post by: G-Unit on February 15, 2017, 01:55:54 AM
Oh well, whatever his finances he'll be able to sort it all out now that his funds will be released and he gets the interest on them, his costs plus 50% paid back, and, possibly, compensation for the freezing injunction.
Title: Re: Supreme Court rules against the McCanns in damages case.
Post by: misty on February 15, 2017, 02:06:06 AM
Oh well, whatever his finances he'll be able to sort it all out now that his funds will be released and he gets the interest on them, his costs plus 50% paid back, and, possibly, compensation for the freezing injunction.
We can only speculate how he'd have settled all his debts had he lost the case.
Title: Re: Supreme Court rules against the McCanns in damages case.
Post by: G-Unit on February 15, 2017, 02:20:02 AM
We can only speculate how he'd have settled all his debts had he lost the case.
Perhaps it's as easy and acceptable in Portugal to declare bankruptcy as some think it is in the UK. It seens the McCanns overestimated his worth somewhat; they'd never have got 1.2M Euros out of him. Their high claim inflated the court costs which they now have to settle.
Title: Re: Supreme Court rules against the McCanns in damages case.
Post by: misty on February 15, 2017, 02:36:49 AM
Perhaps it's as easy and acceptable in Portugal to declare bankruptcy as some think it is in the UK. It seens the McCanns overestimated his worth somewhat; they'd never have got 1.2M Euros out of him. Their high claim inflated the court costs which they now have to settle.
For what it's worth, I think they only wanted the book removed from circulation & for him to stop selling his falsehoods every which way he could. It's what any innocent person would want.
Title: Re: Supreme Court rules against the McCanns in damages case.
Post by: G-Unit on February 15, 2017, 08:17:06 AM
For what it's worth, I think they only wanted the book removed from circulation & for him to stop selling his falsehoods every which way he could. It's what any innocent person would want.
They said it wasn't about the money too, but the first thing they did was take out a secret injunction to freeze his assets.
Title: Re: Supreme Court rules against the McCanns in damages case.
Post by: Eleanor on February 15, 2017, 08:20:43 AM
There was no way Amaral would have been able to pay anyone at the rate he was spending.
There's no point in suing someone if you don't get a payout, is there? Being proved right is all very well, but not quite the same as getting 1.2M Euros.
Title: Re: Supreme Court rules against the McCanns in damages case.
Post by: stephen25000 on February 15, 2017, 08:43:19 AM
So what is the 'analysis' of Amaral's financial 'accounts' supposed to achieve here exactly ?
It is getting quite sad.
What would be more appropriate is a thorough analysis of the McCann's, including where the fees paid to the Mccanns' from TV Interviews, Magazines, Serialization Rights of the book, etc, went to.
Not apparently to the Madeleine fund. &%+((£
Title: Re: Supreme Court rules against the McCanns in damages case.
Post by: Eleanor on February 15, 2017, 08:52:32 AM
There's no point in suing someone if you don't get a payout, is there? Being proved right is all very well, but not quite the same as getting 1.2M Euros.
I'm more interested in the other debts he has. The man was a financial disaster long before The McCanns went to Portugal.
The Court won't have sequestered his money just on the say so of The McCanns. They looked at the situation and probably had huge doubts about him paying anyone.
Besides, even with a third of his pension being held back, his pension is still very much better than mine, and I manage.
Oh, and I worked for considerably longer than 26 years.
Title: Re: Supreme Court rules against the McCanns in damages case.
Post by: G-Unit on February 15, 2017, 08:55:53 AM
So what is the 'analysis' of Amaral's financial 'accounts' supposed to achieve here exactly ?
It is getting quite sad.
What would be more appropriate is a thorough analysis of the McCann's, including where the fees paid to the Mccanns' from TV Interviews, Magazines, Serialization Rights of the book, etc, went to.
Not apparently to the Madeleine fund. &%+((£
I think they are trying to a) argue about which assets the injunction froze and b) justify the freezing injunction. Either way, whatever was frozen could attract a compensatory payment to Amaral as is normal with freezing injunctions. As the McCanns have a lot of costs to pay plus interest and possible compensation on the frozen assets their finances are, at the moment, by far the most relevant. As they are far from transparent there's not much chance of discussing them, though.
Title: Re: Supreme Court rules against the McCanns in damages case.
Post by: stephen25000 on February 15, 2017, 09:00:34 AM
I'm more interested in the other debts he has. The man was a financial disaster long before The McCanns went to Portugal.
The Court won't have sequestered his money just on the say so of The McCanns. They looked at the situation and probably had huge doubts about him paying anyone.
Besides, even with a third of his pension being held back, his pension is still very much better than mine, and I manage.
Oh, and I worked for considerably longer than 26 years.
Need I remind you Eleanor, that the Mccanns were in financial trouble, shortly after Madeleine disappeared, and had to have their mortgage paid for them, until of course the fund stepped in, to pay their 'expenses'.
Title: Re: Supreme Court rules against the McCanns in damages case.
Post by: G-Unit on February 15, 2017, 09:12:24 AM
I'm more interested in the other debts he has. The man was a financial disaster long before The McCanns went to Portugal.
The Court won't have sequestered his money just on the say so of The McCanns. They looked at the situation and probably had huge doubts about him paying anyone.
Besides, even with a third of his pension being held back, his pension is still very much better than mine, and I manage.
Oh, and I worked for considerably longer than 26 years.
I don't think his debts are relevant. He won the case and his finances will be returned to wherever they were before the injunction. The courts may agree to an injunction, but the ones asking for it are still responsible for it.
The fact that his pension is better than yours is relevant how? Do you have an occupational pension? If not, you're not comparing like with like.
Title: Re: Supreme Court rules against the McCanns in damages case.
Post by: Eleanor on February 15, 2017, 09:17:41 AM
Need I remind you Eleanor, that the Mccanns were in financial trouble, shortly after Madeleine disappeared, and had to have their mortgage paid for them, until of course the fund stepped in, to pay their 'expenses'.
No, Stephen, you don't need to remind me. Two payments on an ordinary, up to date mortgage. Hardly on the same scale as Amaral, who didn't even pay his State Taxes, let alone boring things like mortgages.
I would like to know how he got away with it for so long, and what happened to the 59,000 Euros he stole from his brother.
Title: Re: Supreme Court rules against the McCanns in damages case.
Post by: Eleanor on February 15, 2017, 09:22:28 AM
I don't think his debts are relevant. He won the case and his finances will be returned to wherever they were before the injunction. The courts may agree to an injunction, but the ones asking for it are still responsible for it.
The fact that his pension is better than yours is relevant how? Do you have an occupational pension? If not, you're not comparing like with like.
I am talking about the fact that he was no where near as poverty stricken as he made out. I have always paid my taxes, and don't owe anything to anyone.
Title: Re: Supreme Court rules against the McCanns in damages case.
Post by: stephen25000 on February 15, 2017, 09:23:44 AM
No, Stephen, you don't need to remind me. Two payments on an ordinary, up to date mortgage. Hardly on the same scale as Amaral, who didn't even pay his State Taxes, let alone boring things like mortgages.
I would like to know how he got away with it for so long, and what happened to the 59,000 Euros he stole from his brother.
Yet the McCann's who had 2 salaries, were in financial trouble extremely quickly.
Also, what about their other household expenses such as Council Tax. etc. ?
One would have thought with two salaries, they would have savings.
So what money did he 'steal' from his brother ?
Can a citation be provided for that from an independent source and not a Mccann supporter site ?
Title: Re: Supreme Court rules against the McCanns in damages case.
Post by: jassi on February 15, 2017, 09:28:33 AM
Does any of it really matter?
Amaral will get his money back. McCanns will have to pay substantial costs. Media is having a field day over it all
OG plods on with still no sign of Madeleine or how she disappeared and people still seem obsessed with Amaral.
Title: Re: Supreme Court rules against the McCanns in damages case.
Post by: stephen25000 on February 15, 2017, 09:32:19 AM
Yet the McCann's who had 2 salaries, were in financial trouble extremely quickly.
Also, what about their other household expenses such as Council Tax. etc. ?
One would have thought with two salaries, they would have savings.
So what money did he 'steal' from his brother ?
Can a citation be provided for that from an independent source and not a Mccann supporter site ?
Amaral's Family had two salaries.
He sold a house to his brother, took the money, and then sold it to someone else. He and Sofia were convicted of this in a Portuguese Court. It is well documented.
There has never been any suggestion that The McCanns didn't pay their Council Tax.
As for savings, that is a personal thing. I didn't have any savings for years and years, with a young family to support. But I still didn't owe anyone anything.
Title: Re: Supreme Court rules against the McCanns in damages case.
Post by: G-Unit on February 15, 2017, 09:51:16 AM
He sold a house to his brother, took the money, and then sold it to someone else. He and Sofia were convicted of this in a Portuguese Court. It is well documented.
There has never been any suggestion that The McCanns didn't pay their Council Tax.
As for savings, that is a personal thing. I didn't have any savings for years and years, with a young family to support. But I still didn't owe anyone anything.
Some people are good with money, some aren't. Amaral resigned from his job, had money coming in, started a company then it was all halted by the McCann's freezing injunction. He may have failed or succeeded, nobody knows. We do know that his progress was halted for seven years by the action of the McCanns.
Title: Re: Supreme Court rules against the McCanns in damages case.
Post by: Robittybob1 on February 15, 2017, 09:53:55 AM
Some people are good with money, some aren't. Amaral resigned from his job, had money coming in, started a company then it was all halted by the McCann's freezing injunction. He may have failed or succeeded, nobody knows. We do know that his progress was halted for seven years by the action of the McCanns.
Did it take 7 years before that happened? 2008 - 2015?
Title: Re: Supreme Court rules against the McCanns in damages case.
Post by: Eleanor on February 15, 2017, 10:04:48 AM
Some people are good with money, some aren't. Amaral resigned from his job, had money coming in, started a company then it was all halted by the McCann's freezing injunction. He may have failed or succeeded, nobody knows. We do know that his progress was halted for seven years by the action of the McCanns.
I am good with money. My idea of a spending spree is a 2 Euro Paper Weight, and I do have quite a lot of those.
However, I spend no time or money at all in Bars and Restaurants.
By the way, he started his company so he could get a VAT reduction on his Jaguar.
Personally, I think he is much better and more healthy looking than before all this started. I even quite fancy him myself.
Title: Re: Supreme Court rules against the McCanns in damages case.
Post by: G-Unit on February 15, 2017, 10:22:16 AM
He sold a house to his brother, took the money, and then sold it to someone else. He and Sofia were convicted of this in a Portuguese Court. It is well documented.
There has never been any suggestion that The McCanns didn't pay their Council Tax.
As for savings, that is a personal thing. I didn't have any savings for years and years, with a young family to support. But I still didn't owe anyone anything.
Do you have the reference for that Eleanor, as I have tried several searches with zero results ?
Title: Re: Supreme Court rules against the McCanns in damages case.
Post by: Eleanor on February 15, 2017, 10:32:03 AM
Really? That 'vile little man' I think you described him as? Handsome is as handsome does my Mum used to say.
Have you got a Cite for me calling him a vile little man? Although I suppose I might have done. But that wouldn't stop him from being better looking now than he was.
Title: Re: Supreme Court rules against the McCanns in damages case.
Post by: Eleanor on February 15, 2017, 10:34:02 AM
Do you have the reference for that Eleanor, as I have tried several searches with zero results ?
Sofia worked for the Algarve Tourist Regional Board. Link to articles posted on here & another attempt by Amaral to get compensation for defamation (surprised he ever had time to do any work). https://madeleinemccannthetruth.wordpress.com/2011/11/30/well-well-well-goncalo-amaral-and-threats-and-accusations/
Title: Re: Supreme Court rules against the McCanns in damages case.
Post by: G-Unit on February 15, 2017, 02:08:38 PM
They seem to think that he didn't deserve to win the damages trial because;
He wasn't, in their opinions, a fine upstanding citizen!
Of course the two things are totally unrelated. @)(++(*
He has been made out it was an opinion but in fact it was effort to prove the McCanns were guilty. Some might still say "that is an opinion" but it seems to have a character that is more like an accusation. That is what is bugging me.
Title: Re: Supreme Court rules against the McCanns in damages case.
Post by: Eleanor on February 16, 2017, 01:05:21 AM
Being convicted of lying to a court in the case of another missing child seems rather related, to me.
Here's a link to another case the Amaral/Almeida double act were involved in, in 2006, which may interest you as the couple convicted are French. There were allegations that the victim & crime scene were tampered with by adding body weights & staged to make it appear like murder. (I'm still looking at the pathologist's case history).
Here's a link to another case the Amaral/Almeida double act were involved in, in 2006, which may interest you as the couple convicted are French. There were allegations that the victim & crime scene were tampered with by adding body weights & staged to make it appear like murder. (I'm still looking at the pathologist's case history).
Could someone please post a translation as I'm unable to use google translate where I am, thanks.
is this what you wanted? " CASPAR AND BEILLE
Issuance of 07/04/2013 The case of Caspar and Beille CRIME IN THE HIGH SEA
The Intermezzo, a superb sailboat, noticed during the race of the Rum, André Le Floc'h dreamed of it. So, at retirement, he offered it. And he took the sea, to go around the world.
But in Portugal, it was the death he found because during the summer of 2006, his road crossed that of Thierry Beille and Corinne Caspar. Brother and sister, these two lived as a couple a "dolce vita" fusional. They assassinated the Breton sailor to steal his trimaran. If the weather had not played a trick on them, their crime might still go unpunished ...
This is a shipwreck. That of L'Intermezzo, to begin with. On 17 August 2006, the trimaran capsized off the coast of Portugal. A Spanish ship diverts to recover two French shipwrecked: Thierry Beille and Corinne Caspar. But the euphoria of the rescue runs quickly ...
When they recover the wreck of the boat, the Portuguese police discover the body of the owner in the cabin. André le Floc'h is tied up, weighted with objects of all kinds: belts of lead, anchors, comforters, blankets ... And the forensic doctor is formal: the man is not drowned. His lungs are intact. He was killed before the sinking. It carries traces of strangulation ...
For the investigators, only one possible scenario: the two passengers of L'Intermezzo murdered Le Floc'h. They intended to get rid of the corpse by sinking it off Cape St. Vincent, and to escape with the boat.
But the two suspects scream their innocence. At the exit of the police station, in front of the television cameras, they cry to the miscarriage of justice, appeal to the embassy of France! It's a conspiracy ! They want to put a crime on their backs that they have not committed. The victims ? They are the ones ! They explain that they were invited by André Le Floc'h for an outing at sea. There, the owner of the Intermezzo tried to rape Corinne. Thierry managed to neutralize it. But the storm rose, the boat sank. They could not do anything to save the sailor, tied up in his cabin. A vibrant testimony that does not convince the Portuguese police.
By plunging into the life of the two French people, the investigators discover a singular duet: a couple who calls themselves "brothers and sisters", when the civil status establishes no kinship between them; A drifting couple, who have marginalized over the years, wandering from one country to another, without attachments, without friends, without money. A couple where Thierry exercises over his sister the fascination of a guru. And most importantly, the police discovered that the duo had prepared his shot.
The trial of the two Frenchmen opens on 24 October 2007 before the assize court of Lagos in Portugal. But nothing goes as planned. Still in bad publicity, the couple appealed to the media Gilbert Collard, to strengthen his Portuguese defense. But the lawyer is stuck in France, and without him, the two defendants refuse to explain. When the audience resumes on December 14, the benches are full, everyone expects explanations. In vain. Thierry Beille and Corinne Caspar again attack journalists, claiming their innocence under the patient eye of Portuguese justice. An untenable position vis-à-vis the expert opinions of the lawyers. The accused sink into a new shipwreck. The court sentenced them to 24 years in prison.
Speakers:
Gonçalo Amaral , judicial police of Portimao Stéphan Le Floc'h , son of André Le Floc'h Carole Caspar , mother of Corinne Caspar and Thierry Beille Commander Luis dos Reis Agoas , Maritime Police of Southern Portugal Sergeant Luis Silva , Air force rescuer Paulo Linhares , Portuguese public security Ana Luisa Pinto , Portuguese public security Chief Inspector Vitor Tavares de Almeida , judicial police of Portimao Master Antonio Vilar , lawyer of Thierry Beille and Corinne Caspar Julien Dumond , Parisien journalist Arnaud Bizot , a journalist for Paris Match Guy Cally , friend of André le Floc'h Horst Heydenbluth , friend of André le Floc'h Professor Duarte Nuno Vieira , forensic, judicial police in Portimao Heinz Kelpe , former houseowner the reception center of Rousson Jean-Claude Bertrand , Mayor of Rousson Marc Jardel , a friend of Thierry Beille and Corinne Caspar Thierry Montaner , journalist Midi Libre Marcos Lopes Martinho , taxi driver Master Carlos Ferreira Da Silva , lawyer son By André Le Floc'h Paulo Marcelino , journalist at Correio da Manhà Dominique Rizet , journalist."
Title: Re: Supreme Court rules against the McCanns in damages case.
Post by: G-Unit on February 16, 2017, 08:39:42 AM
Being convicted of lying to a court in the case of another missing child seems rather related, to me.
Let's get this clear, Gonçalo Amaral did not lie in court, that would be perjury. He was charged and convicted of "false testimony" to the police when he was questioned by them during the investigation into Leonor Cipriano's torture case. This was somewhat strange as all he could tell the police was what the others told him about the incident in Faro police station since he was not a witness to it.
Title: Re: Supreme Court rules against the McCanns in damages case.
Post by: Montclair on February 16, 2017, 09:13:14 AM
Here's a link to another case the Amaral/Almeida double act were involved in, in 2006, which may interest you as the couple convicted are French. There were allegations that the victim & crime scene were tampered with by adding body weights & staged to make it appear like murder. (I'm still looking at the pathologist's case history).
Nobody ever doubted this couple's guilt. I read about them in Paris Match. The couple were rescued from the trimaran in a storm and then the owner's body was discovered when it was hauled to land. The brother and sister never expected that a storm would ruin their escape with the boat as they had planned to throw the body overboard when out at sea and no one would ever know.
Title: Re: Supreme Court rules against the McCanns in damages case.
Post by: G-Unit on February 16, 2017, 09:30:12 AM
mcann supporters cant seem to accept that imo they havent gracefully have they
I can understand their disappointment, but graceful acceptance of anything is not their style. I found the first judgement strange because it never seemed to say that Amaral defamed the McCanns. Instead it concentrated on the supposed restrictions on his freedom of speech imposed by his former occupation; highlighted by the McCann's lawyer. I didn't, however, lambaste the judge, the Portuguese judiciary, Portuguese law or the country when the judge ruled in the McCann's favour.
The Appeal Court looked at the first judge's arguments concerning the restrictions on Amaral's freedom of speech and rejected them. The Supreme Court agreed.
Title: Re: Supreme Court rules against the McCanns in damages case.
Post by: Alfie on February 16, 2017, 09:54:11 AM
McCann sceptics never criticise anything Portuguese, it's not the done thing. Indeed to do so is considered "Lusophobic" I believe.
Title: Re: Supreme Court rules against the McCanns in damages case.
Post by: Mr Gray on February 16, 2017, 09:59:38 AM
I can understand their disappointment, but graceful acceptance of anything is not their style. I found the first judgement strange because it never seemed to say that Amaral defamed the McCanns. Instead it concentrated on the supposed restrictions on his freedom of speech imposed by his former occupation; highlighted by the McCann's lawyer. I didn't, however, lambaste the judge, the Portuguese judiciary, Portuguese law or the country when the judge ruled in the McCann's favour.
The Appeal Court looked at the first judge's arguments concerning the restrictions on Amaral's freedom of speech and rejected them. The Supreme Court agreed.
graceful acceptance doesn't seem to be your style mccanns no longer arguidos SY say they are not suspects SY explain they accept the abduction scenario
perhaps you should follow your own advice and accept they are innocent
but of course greatful acceptance is not your style
Title: Re: Supreme Court rules against the McCanns in damages case.
Post by: Alfie on February 16, 2017, 10:04:15 AM
I can understand their disappointment, but graceful acceptance of anything is not their style. I found the first judgement strange because it never seemed to say that Amaral defamed the McCanns. Instead it concentrated on the supposed restrictions on his freedom of speech imposed by his former occupation; highlighted by the McCann's lawyer. I didn't, however, lambaste the judge, the Portuguese judiciary, Portuguese law or the country when the judge ruled in the McCann's favour.
The Appeal Court looked at the first judge's arguments concerning the restrictions on Amaral's freedom of speech and rejected them. The Supreme Court agreed.
"Accept Nothing". First line of your signature... 8(0(*
Title: Re: Supreme Court rules against the McCanns in damages case.
Post by: stephen25000 on February 16, 2017, 10:06:04 AM
graceful acceptance doesn't seem to be your style mccanns no longer arguidos SY say they are not suspects SY explain they accept the abduction scenario
perhaps you should follow your own advice and accept they are innocent
but of course greatful acceptance is not your style
Innocent of what dave ?
Title: Re: Supreme Court rules against the McCanns in damages case.
Post by: carlymichelle on February 16, 2017, 10:25:57 AM
they kinda live in the past stephen court stuff from 8 years ago is meanless the mcanns lost the whole case against amaral its what the portugese courts say that matter not the uks
Title: Re: Supreme Court rules against the McCanns in damages case.
Post by: stephen25000 on February 16, 2017, 10:28:19 AM
they kinda live in the past stephen court stuff from 8 years ago is meanless the mcanns lost the whole case against amaral its what the portugese courts say that matter not the uks
McCann sceptics never criticise anything Portuguese, it's not the done thing. Indeed to do so is considered "Lusophobic" I believe.
Firstly, it's quite possible to criticise without being lusophobic. I have posted that the investigation into Madeleine McCann's disappearance wasn't perfect. What I haven't done is blame 'anything Portuguese'. Anyone using lusophobia in an argument has clearly got no case to make and is relying on stirring up hatred to make their point, as has been seen by the comments of gutter journalists.
One by Tony Parsons in the Daily Mirror under the headline "Oh, up yours senor", which was critical of the Portuguese Madeleine McCann investigation, sparked 485 complaints. http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/7415434.stm
Parsons invited the Portuguese ambassador to “shut your stupid sardine-munching mouth”. http://www.anorak.co.uk/184181/madeleine-mccann/madeleine-mccann-press-complaints-tony-parsons-and-no-news.html/
Title: Re: Supreme Court rules against the McCanns in damages case.
Post by: Alfie on February 16, 2017, 10:50:56 AM
Firstly, it's quite possible to criticise without being lusophobic. I have posted that the investigation into Madeleine McCann's disappearance wasn't perfect. What I haven't done is blame 'anything Portuguese'. Anyone using lusophobia in an argument has clearly got no case to make and is relying on stirring up hatred to make their point, as has been seen by the comments of gutter journalists.
One by Tony Parsons in the Daily Mirror under the headline "Oh, up yours senor", which was critical of the Portuguese Madeleine McCann investigation, sparked 485 complaints. http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/7415434.stm
Parsons invited the Portuguese ambassador to “shut your stupid sardine-munching mouth”. http://www.anorak.co.uk/184181/madeleine-mccann/madeleine-mccann-press-complaints-tony-parsons-and-no-news.html/
Hmmm...missing my point by a mile, on purpose I'm sure.
Title: Re: Supreme Court rules against the McCanns in damages case.
Post by: Robittybob1 on February 16, 2017, 10:51:47 AM
graceful acceptance doesn't seem to be your style mccanns no longer arguidos SY say they are not suspects SY explain they accept the abduction scenario
perhaps you should follow your own advice and accept they are innocent
but of course greatful acceptance is not your style
I am free to point out what I see as discrepancies in the McCann's account of the events of 3rd May 2007. Whether they are arguidos or not, whether they are suspects or not, and what SY say has no bearing on that. No-one knows what happened to Madeleine McCann. Nt the PJ, SY or you, so all possibilities remain open.
Title: Re: Supreme Court rules against the McCanns in damages case.
Post by: Alfie on February 16, 2017, 10:57:17 AM
Interesting use of the word plotting, rather than planning in the headline. 8(0(*
After Mitchell's statement it might be difficult for them to benefit from any 'bidding war'
They are asking for any money. "He told The Sun Online: “They want to make it clear that they are not making any money out of Madeleine’s disappearance. Any claims are spurious nonsense but fits in with the Portuguese agenda.”"
Title: Re: Supreme Court rules against the McCanns in damages case.
Post by: Alfie on February 16, 2017, 10:59:35 AM
Interesting use of the word plotting, rather than planning in the headline. 8(0(*
After Mitchell's statement it might be difficult for them to benefit from any 'bidding war'
This is the most interesting bit IMO "Both (interviews) are being organised through Scotland Yard, Mitchell explained. He said: “There will be no fee.”
Title: Re: Supreme Court rules against the McCanns in damages case.
Post by: G-Unit on February 16, 2017, 11:01:41 AM
"Accept Nothing". First line of your signature... 8(0(*
That is part of the advice given to UK policemen when investigating, and very good advice too. It isn't anything to do with questioning the findings of a court of law. Even if the decision of a court seems wrong, there are ways of criticising without using zenophobia.
Title: Re: Supreme Court rules against the McCanns in damages case.
Post by: Alfie on February 16, 2017, 11:04:20 AM
That is part of the advice given to UK policemen when investigating, and very good advice too. It isn't anything to do with questioning the findings of a court of law. Even if the decision of a court seems wrong, there are ways of criticising without using zenophobia.
no one is using xenophobia.
Title: Re: Supreme Court rules against the McCanns in damages case.
Post by: stephen25000 on February 16, 2017, 11:07:53 AM
They are asking for any money. "He told The Sun Online: “They want to make it clear that they are not making any money out of Madeleine’s disappearance. Any claims are spurious nonsense but fits in with the Portuguese agenda.”"
and I just saw a green and pink striped Lion fly past my office window.
Title: Re: Supreme Court rules against the McCanns in damages case.
Post by: jassi on February 16, 2017, 11:09:11 AM
Why do you think the McCanns are objects of this supposed 'hatred' ?
Probably because they are able to do what others can't by fighting the system.
Title: Re: Supreme Court rules against the McCanns in damages case.
Post by: Alfie on February 16, 2017, 11:25:47 AM
Faithlilly, you asked me not to read your posts, so I put you on ignore. Don't then ask me questions expecting answers, unless your posts to me are quoted by others I won't see them. Hope that's clear 8((()*/
Title: Re: Supreme Court rules against the McCanns in damages case.
Post by: stephen25000 on February 16, 2017, 11:26:10 AM
Faithlilly, you asked me not to read your posts, so I put you on ignore. Don't then ask me questions expecting answers, unless your posts to me are quoted by others I won't see them. Hope that's clear 8((()*/
Fair dos 8(0(*
Title: Re: Supreme Court rules against the McCanns in damages case.
Post by: jassi on February 16, 2017, 11:53:37 AM
they kinda live in the past stephen court stuff from 8 years ago is meanless the mcanns lost the whole case against amaral its what the portugese courts say that matter not the uks
The court case has nothing to do with the McCanns innocence You should read it The McCanns are not suspects in any investigation
Title: Re: Supreme Court rules against the McCanns in damages case.
Post by: stephen25000 on February 16, 2017, 12:05:22 PM
Let's get this clear, Gonçalo Amaral did not lie in court, that would be perjury. He was charged and convicted of "false testimony" to the police when he was questioned by them during the investigation into Leonor Cipriano's torture case. This was somewhat strange as all he could tell the police was what the others told him about the incident in Faro police station since he was not a witness to it.
So Amaral was lied to by his men - and because he believed them he ended up with a prison sentence and a criminal conviction? Is that what you are saying?
If that is the case why haven't the officers who lied to him about the incident been prosecuted for attempting to pervert the course of justice via him - and why hasn't Amaral sued them for lying to him thus causing him to be prosecuted and found guilty of a crime? He must know who they are -as presumably he didn't have a bag over his head at any time.
Title: Re: Supreme Court rules against the McCanns in damages case.
Post by: stephen25000 on February 16, 2017, 02:15:42 PM
See what it says "The Supreme Court is Portugal’s highest court but has no criminal authority.
Judges added their job was not to decide if the McCanns bore any criminal responsibility over Maddie’s disappearance.
And they said it would be wrong to draw any inferences about the couple’s guilt or innocence from their ruling. ..... Goncalo Amaral, who headed the initial investigation into Maddie's disappearance, wrote The Truth Of The Lie in 2008 The ex cop is now writing a second Maddie book after judges ruled his “right to freedom of expression” was worthy of greater protection than the McCann’s “right to honour.”"
So it doesn't say they were right or wrong and doesn't say the McCanns didn't suffer loss of honour. But these kind words from the SC Judges don't pay the bills.
Title: Re: Supreme Court rules against the McCanns in damages case.
Post by: Robittybob1 on February 17, 2017, 08:21:56 PM
Another said "Any 'proof' points towards the abduction being a hoax." I would use the word "prank". I wonder what they are implying by the word "hoax".
Title: Re: Supreme Court rules against the McCanns in damages case.
Post by: jassi on February 17, 2017, 08:30:29 PM
Another said "Any 'proof' points towards the abduction being a hoax." I would use the word "prank". I wonder what they are implying by the word "hoax".
A prank is a jolly jape, an amusing joke played on someone.
A hoax is something like the fake abduction of Shannon Mathews. An attempt to deceive and possible make money.
Title: Re: Supreme Court rules against the McCanns in damages case.
Post by: Robittybob1 on February 17, 2017, 08:35:55 PM
MADELINE McCann’s parents have begged their Portuguese lawyer to keep quiet Kate and Gerry McCann have warned their Portuguese lawyer: “Don’t say anything” But Kate and Gerry have now reportedly ordered her to not “say anything” https://www.thesun.co.uk/news/2890547/kate-gerry-mccann-ban-lawyer-not-cleared-maddie-disappearance/?CMP=spklr-_-Editorial-_-FBPAGE-_-TheSun-_-20170217-_-813167549#comments
Did they beg, warn or order Duarte to keep quiet? Make your mind up. Also, why is that news?
Title: Re: Supreme Court rules against the McCanns in damages case.
Post by: faithlilly on February 17, 2017, 09:53:31 PM
MADELINE McCann’s parents have begged their Portuguese lawyer to keep quiet Kate and Gerry McCann have warned their Portuguese lawyer: “Don’t say anything” But Kate and Gerry have now reportedly ordered her to not “say anything” https://www.thesun.co.uk/news/2890547/kate-gerry-mccann-ban-lawyer-not-cleared-maddie-disappearance/?CMP=spklr-_-Editorial-_-FBPAGE-_-TheSun-_-20170217-_-813167549#comments
Did they beg, warn or order Duarte to keep quiet? Make your mind up. Also, why is that news?
'The couple, both 48, from Rothley, Leics, have previously gone to extraordinary lengths to stop people close to them talking and even prevented some British newspapers from reporting certain details about the Maddie mystery.
They have also banned all family members and friends from talking to journalists.'
Title: Re: Supreme Court rules against the McCanns in damages case.
Post by: carlymichelle on February 17, 2017, 10:11:12 PM
Madeleine McCann's parents ban their lawyer from speaking to the press after Portugal's supreme court insisted they hadn't been proved innocent over their daughter's death
Isabel Duarte thought have been considering a reaction after a failed libel battle Ex-policeman Goncalo Amaral claimed the couple faked Maddie's abduction But Kate and Gerry have reportedly ordered her 'not to say anything' about case
By Tracey Kandohla For Mail Online
Published: 04:58 +11:00, 18 February 2017 | Updated: 07:19 +11:00, 18 February 2017
e-mail
1.2k shares
151
View comments
Kate and Gerry McCann have banned their Portuguese lawyer from giving any comment after judges said they had not been cleared over daughter Madeleine's disappearance.
Whilst Isabel Duarte had been carefully considering reaction on their behalf to a failed libel battle against a former police chief 'to protect my clients', they have now warned her: 'Don't say anything!'
Lisbon-based Ms Duarte received a copy of Portugal's Supreme Court judgement 10 days ago – a week after it was made to 'the bitter disappointment' of Maddie's parents and to 'the delight but no surprise' of Goncalo Amaral. Kate and Gerry McCann have banned their Portuguese lawyer from giving any comment after judges said they had not been cleared over daughter Madeleine's disappearance +4
Kate and Gerry McCann have banned their Portuguese lawyer from giving any comment after judges said they had not been cleared over daughter Madeleine's disappearance
But the McCanns have now ordered her not to respond to any media request for their reaction.
Ms Duarte said today: 'We received instructions from the clients not to make any declaration or give public information about the file against Mr Amaral or the case itself.'
The couple lost on appeal their nine-year civil battle against the Portuguese ex-policeman who they had tried to silence for claiming their daughter had been accidentally killed in a holiday apartment in May 2007 and they had covered it up. RELATED ARTICLES
Previous 1 2 Next
Kate and Gerry McCann may sue over Portuguese detective's... Karen Matthews 'is planning to flee Britain and start a new... Britain's most hated mum and the God squad: Born again Karen...
Share this article Share
They have always vehemently denied any involvement.
Former GP Kate and heart doctor Gerry were ruled out as 'arguidos' – formal suspect - in 2008 but the country's top court said in newly released 76-page dossier that this does not 'equate to proof of innocence', meaning suspicion still hangs over them.
Senior judges claim the investigation into them was only shelved because of lack of evidence. Whilst Isabel Duarte (right) had been carefully considering reaction on their behalf to a failed libel battle against a former police chief 'to protect my clients', they have now warned her: 'Don't say anything!' Also pictured: Kate McCann (left) and friend Fiona Payne +4
Whilst Isabel Duarte (right) had been carefully considering reaction on their behalf to a failed libel battle against a former police chief 'to protect my clients', they have now warned her: 'Don't say anything!' Also pictured: Kate McCann (left) and friend Fiona Payne
Their latest order to their lawyer may signal the end of their legal fight against Mr Amaral with no anticipation of them challenging the ruling in the European Court of Human Rights.
The couple, both 48, from Rothley, Leics, have previously gone to extraordinary lengths to stop people close to them talking and even prevented some British newspapers from reporting certain details about the Maddie mystery.
They have also banned all family members and friends from talking to journalists. Ms Duarte received a copy of Portugal's Supreme Court judgement 10 days ago – a week after it was made to 'the bitter disappointment' of Maddie's parents and to 'the delight but no surprise' of Goncalo Amaral (pictured) +4
Ms Duarte received a copy of Portugal's Supreme Court judgement 10 days ago – a week after it was made to 'the bitter disappointment' of Maddie's parents and to 'the delight but no surprise' of Goncalo Amaral (pictured)
The pair only speak publicly on occasional anniversaries of their daughter's disappearance. And Kate does the odd interview as ambassador for Missing People to highlight the charity's work.
Their long-serving spokesman Clarence Mitchell sometimes comments on their behalf but he no longer gets paid for his services.
The McCanns dropped him last year from the Maddie Fund payroll to cut costs but the renowned PR assists them, he says, because 'hopefully it helps in the search for Madeleine.'
The previously reported Supreme Court ruling said there were 'serious concerns' over the theory three-year-old Maddie had been snatched from her bedroom at the Ocean Club apartment in the Algarve's Praia da Luz nearly 10 years ago.
The comments were made in the huge dossier after Mr Goncalo, who headed the hunt for the missing girl, who was handed victory. The McCanns had insisted 'poisonous lies' in his 2008 Maddie book The Truth of the Lie and a TV documentary about the case had been hurtful and libellous.
The Supreme Court is Portugal's highest court but has no criminal authority. Judges added their job was not to decide if the McCanns bore any criminal responsibility over Maddie's disappearance.
And they said it would be wrong to draw any inferences about the couple's guilt or innocence from their ruling. The McCanns have now ordered Duarte not to respond to any media request for their reaction +4
The McCanns have now ordered Duarte not to respond to any media request for their reaction
After receiving a copy of the ruling Ms Duarte said she would make a comment after 'carefully considering the contents the judges wrote' – which has now been blocked by the McCanns.
Mr Mitchell added: 'I haven't seen the ruling so it would be inappropriate for me to talk about it in any way. It is purely for the lawyers.'
Mr Amaral, 58, was booted off the original Maddie inquiry after criticising British police, and later retired. He insists everything written in his book was already contained in police and court case files which had been made public.
He is now writing a second Maddie book after judges ruled his 'right to freedom of expression' was worthy of greater protection than the McCanns' 'right to honour.'
Ms Duarte, speaking before the couple's original libel victory was overturned on appeal: 'It has been proved in the civil file that Mr Amaral earned around 380,000 Euros in one year from the book, which is made of up false stories based on the case.
Kate and Gerry expect compensation for the dreadful damages this book has brought their family.'
Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-4235434/McCanns-ban-Portuguese-lawyer-speaking-press.html#ixzz4Yz13QYnf Follow us: @MailOnline on Twitter | DailyMail on Facebook
Title: Re: Supreme Court rules against the McCanns in damages case.
Post by: Alice Purjorick on February 17, 2017, 10:31:03 PM
"Judges added their job was not to decide if the McCanns bore any criminal responsibility over Maddie’s disappearance". Why should this be a surprise to anyone?. Those sort of things are customarily decided in lower courts. The Supreme Court rule on points of law in most countries whether the system is based on English Common Law or Roman Law. Google it of you like.
It looks like the press are breaking step and going where the story takes them...... &%+((£
Title: Re: Supreme Court rules against the McCanns in damages case.
Post by: carlymichelle on February 17, 2017, 10:35:44 PM
"Judges added their job was not to decide if the McCanns bore any criminal responsibility over Maddie’s disappearance". Why should this be a surprise to anyone?. Those sort of things are customarily decided in lower courts. The Supreme Court rule on points of law in most countries whether the system is based on English Common Law or Roman Law. Google it of you like.
It looks like the press are breaking step and going where the story takes them...... &%+((£
is that a good thing or a bad thing?? @)(++(*
Title: Re: Supreme Court rules against the McCanns in damages case.
Post by: Brietta on February 18, 2017, 12:00:51 AM
Quote
The Supreme Court is Portugal's highest court but has no criminal authority.
Judges added their job was not to decide if the McCanns bore any criminal responsibility over Maddie's disappearance.
And they said it would be wrong to draw any inferences about the couple's guilt or innocence from their ruling. http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-4235434/McCanns-ban-Portuguese-lawyer-speaking-press.html#ixzz4Yz54cPAt
Seems plain enough to me. Which makes one wonder why there is such unmitigated glee and deliberate misinterpretation of that statement ... as well as the choice of words the judges chose to use in their judgement.
Quote
After receiving a copy of the ruling Ms Duarte said she would make a comment after 'carefully considering the contents the judges wrote' – which has now been blocked by the McCanns.
It is normal practice for people to instruct their lawyer ... not the other way round. Ms Duarte could not take it upon herself to make decisions on behalf of her clients ... nor would she ever presume to do so. There would be discussion and consultation on the aftermath of the appeal court judgement.
"Blocked" may be a journalistic term for that and as good a word as any to grab the attention. Not really good enough though, as in my opinion it tends to illustrate what the reporter knows about the confidential discussions which may have taken place between client and lawyer ... and that is absolutely nothing.
As usual the celebratory tone utilised when there might be discomfort caused to the McCann family always seems to overlook the child who was removed from that family and who may well be a young woman now ... Madeleine.
That was nearly ten years ago.
Madeleine's parents have been kept in the loop as far as the investigations into her disappearance are concerned. We have no idea exactly where the police have reached with that, but the McCanns do. Therefore extraordinary decisions by the Portuguese court of appeal may be the least of their thoughts just now. You can be sure that whatever decision they make and whatever statements they may choose to issue, if they choose to issue any at all, will all be carried out with Madeleine at the forefront of their consideration.
Title: Re: Supreme Court rules against the McCanns in damages case.
Post by: Mr Gray on February 18, 2017, 12:49:55 AM
Why should anyone be surprised at this given what happened with Oakley International? They too were the subject of a gagging order which prevented them from releasing damaging material to the media and from speaking out.
No stone unturned has become keep every stone buried just as transparency has turned opaque.
Absolute rubbish John Every professional has an obligation of confidentiality This is a story out of nothing Duarte is not governed by a gagging order but by her professional responsibilities
Title: Re: Supreme Court rules against the McCanns in damages case.
Post by: G-Unit on February 18, 2017, 10:24:32 AM
Correio da Manha reported today: 'The McCanns have requested the annulment of the Supreme Court decision, terming it frivolous for saying it 'had not been possible for public prosecutors to obtain sufficient evidence of crimes by the appellants.'
Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-4237066/Madeleine-McCann-s-parents-fight-court-ruling.html#ixzz4Z1vkKzuM Follow us: @MailOnline on Twitter | DailyMail on Facebook
Title: Re: Supreme Court rules against the McCanns in damages case.
Post by: jassi on February 18, 2017, 10:30:46 AM
Correio da Manha reported today: 'The McCanns have requested the annulment of the Supreme Court decision, terming it frivolous for saying it 'had not been possible for public prosecutors to obtain sufficient evidence of crimes by the appellants.'
Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-4237066/Madeleine-McCann-s-parents-fight-court-ruling.html#ixzz4Z1vkKzuM Follow us: @MailOnline on Twitter | DailyMail on Facebook
Are they able to do that? Is the Supreme Court not the final word in Portugal for any and all legal decision?
Title: Re: Supreme Court rules against the McCanns in damages case.
Post by: stephen25000 on February 18, 2017, 10:40:27 AM
The Supreme Court is Portugal's highest court but has no criminal authority.
Judges added their job was not to decide if the McCanns bore any criminal responsibility over Maddie's disappearance.
And they said it would be wrong to draw any inferences about the couple's guilt or innocence from their ruling. http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-4235434/McCanns-ban-Portuguese-lawyer-speaking-press.html#ixzz4Yz54cPAt
Seems plain enough to me. Which makes one wonder why there is such unmitigated glee and deliberate misinterpretation of that statement ... as well as the choice of words the judges chose to use in their judgement.
Quote
After receiving a copy of the ruling Ms Duarte said she would make a comment after 'carefully considering the contents the judges wrote' – which has now been blocked by the McCanns.
It is normal practice for people to instruct their lawyer ... not the other way round. Ms Duarte could not take it upon herself to make decisions on behalf of her clients ... nor would she ever presume to do so. There would be discussion and consultation on the aftermath of the appeal court judgement.
"Blocked" may be a journalistic term for that and as good a word as any to grab the attention. Not really good enough though, as in my opinion it tends to illustrate what the reporter knows about the confidential discussions which may have taken place between client and lawyer ... and that is absolutely nothing.
As usual the celebratory tone utilised when there might be discomfort caused to the McCann family always seems to overlook the child who was removed from that family and who may well be a young woman now ... Madeleine.
That was nearly ten years ago.
Madeleine's parents have been kept in the loop as far as the investigations into her disappearance are concerned. We have no idea exactly where the police have reached with that, but the McCanns do. Therefore extraordinary decisions by the Portuguese court of appeal may be the least of their thoughts just now. You can be sure that whatever decision they make and whatever statements they may choose to issue, if they choose to issue any at all, will all be carried out with Madeleine at the forefront of their consideration.
Very well put, Brietta.
I certainly can't Isabel discussing in detail the nature of the transaction that took place between her and her clients, and the paper has adopted a sensationalist spin.
Title: Re: Supreme Court rules against the McCanns in damages case.
Post by: Robittybob1 on February 18, 2017, 10:49:51 AM
The Supreme Court is Portugal's highest court but has no criminal authority.
Judges added their job was not to decide if the McCanns bore any criminal responsibility over Maddie's disappearance.
And they said it would be wrong to draw any inferences about the couple's guilt or innocence from their ruling. http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-4235434/McCanns-ban-Portuguese-lawyer-speaking-press.html#ixzz4Yz54cPAt
Seems plain enough to me. Which makes one wonder why there is such unmitigated glee and deliberate misinterpretation of that statement ... as well as the choice of words the judges chose to use in their judgement.
Quote
After receiving a copy of the ruling Ms Duarte said she would make a comment after 'carefully considering the contents the judges wrote' – which has now been blocked by the McCanns.
It is normal practice for people to instruct their lawyer ... not the other way round. Ms Duarte could not take it upon herself to make decisions on behalf of her clients ... nor would she ever presume to do so. There would be discussion and consultation on the aftermath of the appeal court judgement.
"Blocked" may be a journalistic term for that and as good a word as any to grab the attention. Not really good enough though, as in my opinion it tends to illustrate what the reporter knows about the confidential discussions which may have taken place between client and lawyer ... and that is absolutely nothing.
As usual the celebratory tone utilised when there might be discomfort caused to the McCann family always seems to overlook the child who was removed from that family and who may well be a young woman now ... Madeleine.
That was nearly ten years ago.
Madeleine's parents have been kept in the loop as far as the investigations into her disappearance are concerned. We have no idea exactly where the police have reached with that, but the McCanns do. Therefore extraordinary decisions by the Portuguese court of appeal may be the least of their thoughts just now. You can be sure that whatever decision they make and whatever statements they may choose to issue, if they choose to issue any at all, will all be carried out with Madeleine at the forefront of their consideration.
I think the pertinent point is that for years the McCanns have claimed that the archiving report was tantamount to a declaration of their innocence in the disappearance of their daughter. The SC has clarified that this isn't the case.
Title: Re: Supreme Court rules against the McCanns in damages case.
Post by: Robittybob1 on February 18, 2017, 11:11:15 AM
I think the pertinent point is that for years the McCanns claimed that the archiving report was tantamount to a declaration of their innocence in the disappearance of their daughter. The SC has clarified that this isn't the case.
And quite clearly they were wrong. Wrong for making Jez Wilkins' refusal to do a reconstruction attributable to the guilt of the McCanns. Making Jane Tanners statements attributable to the guilt of the McCanns.
In fact any actions by the Tapas 7 should not be made attributable to the guilt of the McCanns.
Title: Re: Supreme Court rules against the McCanns in damages case.
Post by: Brietta on February 18, 2017, 11:37:00 AM
Maddie's parents accuse the Supreme Court
Kate and Gerry are asking for a nullity of judgment.
The McCann couple, Maddie's parents, the English girl missing in the Algarve in 2007, called for the nullity of the judgment of the Supreme Court of Justice, calling it light-hearted (classificando-o de leviano)"because it was not possible for the Public Prosecutor to obtain sufficient evidence of the commission of crimes by recurrent". The Supreme Court confirmed the decision of the Relation to revoke the payment of a compensation of 500 thousand euros by the ex-inspector of PJ Gonçalo Amaral.
Ler mais em: http://www.cmjornal.pt/portugal/detalhe/pais-de-maddie-acusam-o-supremo?ref=HP_Outros
Title: Re: Supreme Court rules against the McCanns in damages case.
Post by: Alfie on February 18, 2017, 11:55:44 AM
Good luck on 'em I say. 8((()*/
Title: Re: Supreme Court rules against the McCanns in damages case.
Post by: Brietta on February 18, 2017, 12:08:04 PM
All the supreme court had to do and say was to confirm the decision in favour of Amaral. That would have been it ... all done and dusted.
For some reason best known to themselves they have overstepped the mark with probably illegal pronouncements which have further damaged the McCanns. They knew what they were doing as they said in their judgement they had no locus in criminal cases.
It remains to be seen if there is justice in Portugal ... a situation which I think quite a few Portuguese citizens will be watching with interest.
Title: Re: Supreme Court rules against the McCanns in damages case.
Post by: Mr Gray on February 18, 2017, 12:13:40 PM
As I have said they contradicted themselves in their judgement which isn't very impressive Have they supplied the McCanns with the ammunition to have their judgement annulled What an absolute farce Portuguese justice is
Title: Re: Supreme Court rules against the McCanns in damages case.
Post by: faithlilly on February 18, 2017, 12:17:37 PM
Kate and Gerry are asking for a nullity of judgment.
The McCann couple, Maddie's parents, the English girl missing in the Algarve in 2007, called for the nullity of the judgment of the Supreme Court of Justice, calling it light-hearted (classificando-o de leviano)"because it was not possible for the Public Prosecutor to obtain sufficient evidence of the commission of crimes by recurrent". The Supreme Court confirmed the decision of the Relation to revoke the payment of a compensation of 500 thousand euros by the ex-inspector of PJ Gonçalo Amaral.
Ler mais em: http://www.cmjornal.pt/portugal/detalhe/pais-de-maddie-acusam-o-supremo?ref=HP_Outros
Good money after bad but hey, they've got to be seen to be doing something !
Title: Re: Supreme Court rules against the McCanns in damages case.
Post by: Brietta on February 18, 2017, 12:33:33 PM
Absolutely though from what I can see they have very little chance of success and will only generate more negative headlines in the press.
The arrogance displayed by the appeal court judges in the comments made in their judgement justifying their decision and the thought processes they used to reach it has given the McCanns a myriad of causes for complaint.
If they had limited their response to the terms of their lawful remit I doubt the McCanns would have had little ammunition to take it any further ... even if they had the desire to do so and there is nothing to say they would not have cut their losses at that point.
The judgement was shameful. It remains to be seen if it can be appealed ... but even a layman can see there are plenty of grounds for argument that it should be.
Title: Re: Supreme Court rules against the McCanns in damages case.
Post by: Eleanor on February 18, 2017, 01:07:28 PM
I wonder if The Judges did that on purpose.
Title: Re: Supreme Court rules against the McCanns in damages case.
Post by: Angelo222 on February 18, 2017, 01:11:28 PM
The arrogance displayed by the appeal court judges in the comments made in their judgement justifying their decision and the thought processes they used to reach it has given the McCanns a myriad of causes for complaint.
If they had limited their response to the terms of their lawful remit I doubt the McCanns would have had little ammunition to take it any further ... even if they had the desire to do so and there is nothing to say they would not have cut their losses at that point.
The judgement was shameful. It remains to be seen if it can be appealed ... but even a layman can see there are plenty of grounds for argument that it should be.
If they had behaved more like the parents of a missing child and cooperated fully with the authorities in the first place they wouldn't be in the unenviable position they are in today. The SC decision and their comments re innocence must be the final straw.
Title: Re: Supreme Court rules against the McCanns in damages case.
Post by: Alice Purjorick on February 18, 2017, 01:16:06 PM
Good money after bad but hey, they've got to be seen to be doing something !
That about sums it up.
l
http://www.europeanlawinstitute.eu/membership/institutional-observers/portuguese-supreme-court/ "The Portuguese Supreme Court was created, by constitutional law, on September 23rd in 1822, as the highest Court of the Portuguese judicial organization. The Supreme Court has competence exclusively on legal matters on civil, criminal and law issues".[/b]
http://www.europeanlawinstitute.eu/membership/institutional-observers/portuguese-supreme-court/ "The Portuguese Supreme Court was created, by constitutional law, on September 23rd in 1822, as the highest Court of the Portuguese judicial organization. The Supreme Court has competence exclusively on legal matters on civil, criminal and law issues".[/b]
If they had behaved more like the parents of a missing child and cooperated fully with the authorities in the first place they wouldn't be in the unenviable position they are in today. The SC decision and their comments re innocence must be the final straw.
Please stop writing nonsense. Nothing would have stopped Amaral cashing in on the case at the expense of the McCanns' reputation and Madeleine's right to be considered alive and findable and you know it.
Title: Re: Supreme Court rules against the McCanns in damages case.
Post by: stephen25000 on February 18, 2017, 02:15:25 PM
The arrogance displayed by the appeal court judges in the comments made in their judgement justifying their decision and the thought processes they used to reach it has given the McCanns a myriad of causes for complaint.
If they had limited their response to the terms of their lawful remit I doubt the McCanns would have had little ammunition to take it any further ... even if they had the desire to do so and there is nothing to say they would not have cut their losses at that point.
The judgement was shameful. It remains to be seen if it can be appealed ... but even a layman can see there are plenty of grounds for argument that it should be.
Not really interested in your opinion Brietta. The SC, who know about these things, have given their verdict. Even if the article is true I very much doubt the McCanns will have any success.
For my tuppenceworth I don't think the claim is true and Duarte has been silenced because she wasn't willing to play ball.
Title: Re: Supreme Court rules against the McCanns in damages case.
Post by: Alfie on February 18, 2017, 02:31:50 PM
I reckon the McCanns have yet to play their ace.... 8(>((
Title: Re: Supreme Court rules against the McCanns in damages case.
Post by: stephen25000 on February 18, 2017, 02:37:17 PM
We've heard for years that Amaral had one, and I didn't believe that either.
If they try to use May the 3 rd, as their ace in the hole, it will backfire.
Likewise, I would imagine the Portuguese judiciary have no time for the Mccann's appeals. As i said earlier, the judgement from the Supreme Court, contained nothing really different, from the original shelving of the case, which I read, and was quite clear cut.
Title: Re: Supreme Court rules against the McCanns in damages case.
Post by: Angelo222 on February 18, 2017, 02:45:21 PM
Please stop writing nonsense. Nothing would have stopped Amaral cashing in on the case at the expense of the McCanns' reputation and Madeleine's right to be considered alive and findable and you know it.
I think you are deluding yourself Alfie, Amaral would still be a PJ officer had British politicians not attempted to dictate the outcome of this case. Even Met officers have said the interference by politicians in this case was unprecedented and unacceptable.
Title: Re: Supreme Court rules against the McCanns in damages case.
Post by: stephen25000 on February 18, 2017, 02:50:18 PM
The story running in the online Daily Mail, appears to have been demoted from the main stories, and with 4 comments, as it was earlier today.
Title: Re: Supreme Court rules against the McCanns in damages case.
Post by: Alfie on February 18, 2017, 02:56:10 PM
I think you are deluding yourself Alfie, Amaral would still be a PJ officer had British politicians not attempted to dictate the outcome of this case. Even Met officers have said the interference by politicians in this case was unprecedented and unacceptable.
In my opinion it is you who is deluding yourself. The McCanns cooperation or perceived (by you) lack thereof would have made absoloutely no difference to the decisions Amaral took during his handling of the case, and therefore I am perfectly entitled to hold the view that nothing would have stopped him cashing in on it in the way he clearly did.
Title: Re: Supreme Court rules against the McCanns in damages case.
Post by: Eleanor on February 18, 2017, 02:58:14 PM
In my opinion it is you who is deluding yourself. The McCanns cooperation or perceived (by you) lack thereof would have made absoloutely no difference to the decisions Amaral took during his handling of the case, and therefore I am perfectly entitled to hold the view that nothing would have stopped him cashing in on it in the way he clearly did.
Amaral was left with no choice after speaking out about the interference. He was absolutely right and many Met officers support him.
Title: Re: Supreme Court rules against the McCanns in damages case.
Post by: Angelo222 on February 18, 2017, 03:09:12 PM
You're wrong but that is nothing new. There is no appeal beyond Portugal's Supreme Court. If they make a complaint that is an entirely different issue. I completely agree with the SC, they failed to demonstrate their innocence by their actions.
Title: Re: Supreme Court rules against the McCanns in damages case.
Post by: Mr Gray on February 18, 2017, 03:10:41 PM
We've heard for years that Amaral had one, and I didn't believe that either.
If they try to use May the 3 rd, as their ace in the hole, it will backfire.
Likewise, I would imagine the Portuguese judiciary have no time for the Mccann's appeals. As i said earlier, the judgement from the Supreme Court, contained nothing really different, from the original shelving of the case, which I read, and was quite clear cut.
The SC said it was not their position to judge the McCanns guilt or innocence and then did exactly that Surely you can see the dichotomy
Title: Re: Supreme Court rules against the McCanns in damages case.
Post by: Eleanor on February 18, 2017, 03:11:12 PM
You're wrong but that is nothing new. There is no appeal beyond Portugal's Supreme Court. If they make a complaint that is an entirely different issue. I completely agree with the SC, they failed to demonstrate their innocence by their actions.
Let's be thankful that we have something new to talk about.
Title: Re: Supreme Court rules against the McCanns in damages case.
Post by: Eleanor on February 18, 2017, 03:12:37 PM
You're wrong but that is nothing new. There is no appeal beyond Portugal's Supreme Court. If they make a complaint that is an entirely different issue. I completely agree with the SC, they failed to demonstrate their innocence by their actions.
You might agree with it and you also agree with the torture of ciprianos and nether has any place in a civilised justice system No one has to prove their innocence Another own goal by the SC
Title: Re: Supreme Court rules against the McCanns in damages case.
Post by: stephen25000 on February 18, 2017, 03:14:58 PM
The SC said it was not their position to judge the McCanns guilt or innocence and then did exactly that Surely you can see the dichotomy
Exactly. One is clearly a direct contradiction of the other. Totally bizarre IMO for the judges of the SC to deem that contradicting their own ruling is an acceptable stance for them to take.
Title: Re: Supreme Court rules against the McCanns in damages case.
Post by: Angelo222 on February 18, 2017, 03:37:11 PM
You might agree with it and you also agree with the torture of ciprianos and nether has any place in a civilised justice system No one has to prove their innocence Another own goal by the SC
The Ciprianos got a bashing and what's more they deserved it.
Title: Re: Supreme Court rules against the McCanns in damages case.
Post by: Angelo222 on February 18, 2017, 03:40:19 PM
Perhaps you need to listen to other sources. *&*%£
I have listened to all of the sauces, Stephen. For ten years now. Most of them are rubbish. You just need to isolate the carp. Which I am quite sure you are capable of.
I do get your main point. But this remains a matter of opinion. I do not think that you believe that The McCanns harmed their daughter.
Title: Re: Supreme Court rules against the McCanns in damages case.
Post by: Eleanor on February 18, 2017, 03:48:07 PM
You correctly pointed this out very early on whilst the sceptics were still celebrating
It always takes the likes of you and me a minute or ten to get our heads around the latest farce. It has always been so.
Title: Re: Supreme Court rules against the McCanns in damages case.
Post by: Angelo222 on February 18, 2017, 03:52:55 PM
The McCann's are €500,000 worse off thanks to the Portuguese Supreme Court judgement. Add to that the damages which Amaral can now seek and the legal fees which are due and thinks don't look so rosey any more.
Title: Re: Supreme Court rules against the McCanns in damages case.
Post by: ferryman on February 18, 2017, 04:00:36 PM
The Ciprianos got a bashing and what's more they deserved it.
You think beating suspects in police custody to a point of near blindness while tied to a chair with a bag over their head is acceptable police-conduct, do you?
Title: Re: Supreme Court rules against the McCanns in damages case.
Post by: Eleanor on February 18, 2017, 04:01:33 PM
The McCann's are €500,000 worse off thanks to the Portuguese Supreme Court judgement. Add to that the damages which Amaral can now seek and the legal fees which are due and thinks don't look so rosey any more.
It isn't over yet Then there is still the ECHR Where the McCanns have an excellent case after the debacle of the SC judgement I've been doing some reading and if the McCanns won in Europe the Portuguese govt would be forced to reimburse them for any losses suffered So they would have to pay the McCanns their compensation plus any other payments to GA
Title: Re: Supreme Court rules against the McCanns in damages case.
Post by: stephen25000 on February 18, 2017, 04:21:16 PM
It isn't over yet Then there is still the ECHR Where the McCanns have an excellent case after the debacle of the SC judgement I've been doing some reading and if the McCanns won in Europe the Portuguese govt would be forced to reimburse them for any losses suffered So they would have to pay the McCanns their compensation plus any other payments to GA
Have you forgotten the failure rate in cases from the UK ?
Title: Re: Supreme Court rules against the McCanns in damages case.
Post by: Mr Gray on February 18, 2017, 04:25:01 PM
Have you forgotten the failure rate in cases from the UK ?
I haven't forgotten anything The SC have handed the McCanns a very strong case
Title: Re: Supreme Court rules against the McCanns in damages case.
Post by: Alice Purjorick on February 18, 2017, 04:34:23 PM
Maybe it's the last throw of the dice having just received the bill from the Portuguese Courts and so on. May be the Portuguese Supreme Court works like ours who knows?
National court system The Portuguese judicial system includes judicial courts and administrative courts, both of them falling within the appellate jurisdictions of two supreme courts: respectively, the Supreme Court of Justice and the Administrative Supreme Court. Despite the separation by subject matter, these two courts’ rules and principles are exactly the same. Both the judicial courts and the administrative ones are independent and judge exclusively according to the law. There is still one higher judicial authority, the Constitutional Court, whose competence is defined ratione materia and only judges issues related to the constitutionality of the rules themselves or as they have been applied by common courts. 1 As for the judicial courts, these include 3 levels of judicial courts: the lower courts Tribunais de Primeira Instância (Courts of first instance), the second instance courts Tribunais de Relação (Courts of Appeal), and the Supreme Court (Supremo Tribunal de Justiça). The lower courts decide over the majority of disputes, and an appeal to a second instance court can be made depending on the monetary value and issues being disputed, except when personal rights (e.g. family cases) are under trial (in these cases appeals can be allowed notwithstanding the monetary value at issue). The second instance courts decide mainly the appeals of the decisions of the lower courts. But they also decide other lawsuits. Amongst those issues these are the most important: the cases against law judges, military judges, district-attorneys, in relation to their functions; the crimes perpetrated by these officials; and lawsuits related to the international judiciary cooperation in criminal matters. The supreme court of justice is designed to judge appeals from the lower courts, but also the following: cases against judges of the supreme court and district-attorneys regarding the official actions within the jurisdiction of the courts; crimes perpetrated by these judges and districtattorneys related to their official functions; matters of habeas corpus related with illegal arrests; among other things. In the appellate system there are essentially two types of appeals that are subdivided into two categories: ordinary appeals – those appeals that are presented within a period of 30 days after the sentence notification; appeal to the merits of the case with this appeal, a losing party tries to obtain a new decision about the merits of the sentence of the lower courts in the second instance courts; appeal to the higher courts; with this appeal, a losing party can obtain a new decision regarding the merits of the sentence passed by a second instance by application to the Supreme Court. extraordinary appeals – those appeals that are presented after that period of 30 days; 2 appeal to unify the jurisprudence; with this appeal, the parties can present the appeal to the plenary of the Supreme Court when this court has decided differently in a previous case, about the same legislation and about the same fundamental question of law; revision appeal; with this appeal the parties can apply to have the decision of a lower courts, or of a second instance courts, re-evaluated under very strict circumstances, namely: - another sentence as considered proved that the previous decision was the result of a crime committed by the deciding judge; - a document, judicial act, expert opinion, arbitrator was false or untrue, and determined (influenced) the sentence and this issue was not discussed in the previous process; - a document that the party was unaware of, or could not have knowledge of, and, is so pivotal to that it could change the previous decision to be in favour of the losing party; - the transaction, confession, desistance was invalid; - the previous decision is incompatible with a final decision of an international court that has binding application; or - the dispute was decided based upon a simulated act of the parties and the court was not aware of that simulation. Regarding administrative courts, these are also divided into three levels: the lower courts, the second instance courts and the Administrative Supreme Court. The criteria to divide the jurisdiction among those three levels are the same as explained above for judicial courts and the rules related to appeals are similar given that the administrative appeal system is mainly the same as the established in the Code of Civil Procedure (CCP). When it comes to general rules related to appeals, it has to underline that also before administrative courts generally the appellant must present a reasoned request within 30 days after the appealed decision came to his/her knowledge. Usually the appeal does not suspend the court’s decision but there are some exceptions. 3 Most of the decisions do admit only one, not two successive appeals. However, the administrative judicial system also recognises appeals to unify the jurisprudence (recurso de uniformização de jurisprudência) before the plenary of the Administrative Supreme Court. As far as the proceedings before the Constitutional Court are concerned, the following can be stated. Appeals against judicial decisions made to the Constitutional Court are restricted to questions raised regarding unconstitutionality or illegality. Appeals before the Constitutional Court may be presented by individuals in circumstances such as the following court decisions: - rejecting the application of a rule on the grounds of unconstitutionality; - applying a rule where the unconstitutionality of which has been raised during the proceedings. Deadlines are however more strict and an appeal with the Constitutional Court must be filed within 10 days. This appeal interrupts the period for filing other appeals that may be made to the decision, which may then be filed after interruption has ceased. Once the appeal is accepted deadline for allegations are 30 days as from the respective notification. The decision on the appeal determines res judicata regarding the question of unconstitutionality or illegality. Should the Constitutional Court find the appeal to be well-founded, even if only partially, the proceedings drop back to the court from which they came, so that this same court, depending on the case, can change the decision or have it changed in agreement with the judgement on the question of unconstitutionality or illegality.
Title: Re: Supreme Court rules against the McCanns in damages case.
Post by: Mr Gray on February 18, 2017, 04:35:57 PM
I thought a gentleman of your calibre would be able to tell us which body precisely the complaint had to be made to and the nature of the complaint. So far I see abstracts from what has been said in the press plus a lot of speculation along the lines of "we wuz right the sceptics wuz wrong just you wait an' see". With all due respect you have saying that sort of thing for approaching 4 years to my knowledge. I might be handy to know the foundation upon which the belief is based.
BTW this is good for a laugh: http://portugalresident.com/hysteria-mounts-as-mccann-parents-revealed-to-be-%E2%80%9Cfighting%E2%80%9D-defeat-in-portugal%E2%80%99s-supreme-court
Title: Re: Supreme Court rules against the McCanns in damages case.
Post by: stephen25000 on February 18, 2017, 05:46:15 PM
You think beating suspects in police custody to a point of near blindness while tied to a chair with a bag over their head is acceptable police-conduct, do you?
Well if you bash a child's brains out against a brick wall you get all that you deserve.
Title: Re: Supreme Court rules against the McCanns in damages case.
Post by: Angelo222 on February 18, 2017, 08:19:32 PM
From what we have seen they have said the McCanns are still suspects They have said the McCanns do not have the right to be considered innocent
I don't recall reading anything in the judgement which claimed they were suspects. Stating that they failed to demonstrate their innocence is a different matter.
Title: Re: Supreme Court rules against the McCanns in damages case.
Post by: Angelo222 on February 18, 2017, 08:21:24 PM
It isn't over yet Then there is still the ECHR Where the McCanns have an excellent case after the debacle of the SC judgement I've been doing some reading and if the McCanns won in Europe the Portuguese govt would be forced to reimburse them for any losses suffered So they would have to pay the McCanns their compensation plus any other payments to GA
That's fantasyland, they could never win any case against Portugal in the ECHR in the current political climate.
Title: Re: Supreme Court rules against the McCanns in damages case.
Post by: Angelo222 on February 18, 2017, 08:22:41 PM
So how do you account for his silence then,he's seen that curb ball.Far cleverer than you give him credit for which is why six judges to one have been on his side.
Title: Re: Supreme Court rules against the McCanns in damages case.
Post by: Mr Gray on February 19, 2017, 03:14:12 AM
I don't recall reading anything in the judgement which claimed they were suspects. Stating that they failed to demonstrate their innocence is a different matter.
The McCanns have the right to be considered innocent whether you like it or not The SC do not have the right to deny them this to It really is that simple
Title: Re: Supreme Court rules against the McCanns in damages case.
Post by: Robittybob1 on February 19, 2017, 04:54:02 AM
The McCanns have the right to be considered innocent whether you like it or not The SC do not have the right to deny them this to It really is that simple
Think of how it goes. A crime has been committed and the police investigate, they can't think everyone is innocent for someone or other is guilty. They have to begin pointing the finger at someone.
Did the evidence that they thought pointed to the McCanns did that point to them and them only? If it wasn't specific they have no evidence against them at all.
Title: Re: Supreme Court rules against the McCanns in damages case.
Post by: Mr Gray on February 19, 2017, 06:34:32 AM
Think of how it goes. A crime has been committed and the police investigate, they can't think everyone is innocent for someone or other is guilty. They have to begin pointing the finger at someone.
Did the evidence that they thought pointed to the McCanns did that point to them and them only? If it wasn't specific they have no evidence against them at all.
Amaral did not understand the evidence Apart from the dogs and the DNA which he misunderstood was he claimed there was a blood splatter on the wall This was never confirmed as blood
Title: Re: Supreme Court rules against the McCanns in damages case.
Post by: G-Unit on February 19, 2017, 06:40:07 AM
The McCanns have the right to be considered innocent whether you like it or not The SC do not have the right to deny them this to It really is that simple
The SC didn't deny them anything except the right to argue that the archiving dispatch cleared/acquitted them. It didn't.
The judges said the investigation was archived due to insufficient evidence. The McCanns now seem to be objecting to that phrase. If the Attorney General used that phrase in his press release in 2008 they don't have a leg to stand on imo.
Title: Re: Supreme Court rules against the McCanns in damages case.
Post by: Mr Gray on February 19, 2017, 07:01:25 AM
The SC didn't deny them anything except the right to argue that the archiving dispatch cleared/acquitted them. It didn't.
The judges said the investigation was archived due to insufficient evidence. The McCanns now seem to be objecting to that phrase. If the Attorney General used that phrase in his press release in 2008 they don't have a leg to stand on imo.
You need to read it agin It denies them the presumption of innocence
Title: Re: Supreme Court rules against the McCanns in damages case.
Post by: G-Unit on February 19, 2017, 07:08:50 AM
You need to read it agin It denies them the presumption of innocence
Then you will be able to provide a cite showing what they said on that subject. 8(>((
Title: Re: Supreme Court rules against the McCanns in damages case.
Post by: Alfie on February 19, 2017, 07:41:17 AM
The Supreme Court made a judgement that there were "serious concerns" about the theory that Madeleine was abducted. WTF was that all about then? What position were they in to make such a judgement?
Title: Re: Supreme Court rules against the McCanns in damages case.
Post by: Robittybob1 on February 19, 2017, 07:44:05 AM
The SC didn't deny them anything except the right to argue that the archiving dispatch cleared/acquitted them. It didn't.
The judges said the investigation was archived due to insufficient evidence. The McCanns now seem to be objecting to that phrase. If the Attorney General used that phrase in his press release in 2008 they don't have a leg to stand on imo.
Insufficient evidence to prove them guilty. I can understand that but what evidence did they have on them at all? Was it none? Was there anything that was McCann specific?
The Supreme Court made a judgement that there were "serious concerns" about the evidence that was archived in the case. WTF was that all about then?
Was that McCann specific or could it be applied to the Tapas 7 as well? Are they being made responsible for the deeds of others?
Like a staged scene could have been staged by anyone, so they can't pin that on Kate or Gerry. Droplets of Madeleine's blood - no one can say who caused her to bleed.
Title: Re: Supreme Court rules against the McCanns in damages case.
Post by: slartibartfast on February 19, 2017, 07:55:43 AM
The Supreme Court made a judgement that there were "serious concerns" about the theory that Madeleine was abducted. WTF was that all about then? What position were they in to make such a judgement?
One would assume they had access to all the evidence and reports of those involved in the case.
Title: Re: Supreme Court rules against the McCanns in damages case.
Post by: G-Unit on February 19, 2017, 07:56:41 AM
Here is the relevant passage. Once more they are arguing against the first judgement, which referred to the presumption of innocence. They appear to be questioning whether it has any relevance in a civil case as opposed to a criminal case. They conclude it has not. They do not, therefore, deny the McCanns the presumption of innocence, they merely ruled that it has no relevance in a civil case.
Page 68 But is, in this case, the protection of the appellants' rights to their good name and reputation closely related to the presumption of innocence, as said in the first instance's sentence?
First of all it has to be said that the principle of the presumption of innocence (art. 32°-2 of the CRP, 11°-1 of the UDHR and 6°-2 of the European Convention on the Human Rights) is a rule of treatment to be given to the arguido (formal suspect) throughout the judicial criminal process.
What is in discussion here is merely the civil liability of the respondents, on the grounds that they have expressed and disclosed the above-mentioned thesis/opinion on the disappearance in question.
It follows that the outcome of the present case is not such as to call into question the extra-procedural dimension of the presumption of innocence.
Title: Re: Supreme Court rules against the McCanns in damages case.
Post by: Alfie on February 19, 2017, 08:00:10 AM
One would assume they had access to all the evidence and reports of those involved in the case.
why would you assume that? It wasn't part of their remit to pronounce on whether or not they thought Madeleine may have been abducted was it?
Title: Re: Supreme Court rules against the McCanns in damages case.
Post by: Alfie on February 19, 2017, 08:09:00 AM
Basically the SC ruled that because they had once been arguidos that they should not be allowed to considered innocent becuase the case against them was shelved. Which is a crock of shit really when you think about it.
Title: Re: Supreme Court rules against the McCanns in damages case.
Post by: Mr Gray on February 19, 2017, 08:11:35 AM
Basically the SC ruled that because they had once been arguidos that they should not be allowed to considered innocent becuase the case against them was shelved. Which is a crock of shit really when you think about it.
that is it...and by doing this they have denied the mccanns the presumtion of innocence
Title: Re: Supreme Court rules against the McCanns in damages case.
Post by: stephen25000 on February 19, 2017, 08:23:14 AM
The SC didn't deny them anything except the right to argue that the archiving dispatch cleared/acquitted them. It didn't.
The judges said the investigation was archived due to insufficient evidence. The McCanns now seem to be objecting to that phrase. If the Attorney General used that phrase in his press release in 2008 they don't have a leg to stand on imo.
Yes it was.
I have already suggested the Mccanns know damn well this 'appeal' is a waste of time and it is being used as a delaying tactic for them to fight back with the upcoming 10 th 'anniversary'.
Title: Re: Supreme Court rules against the McCanns in damages case.
Post by: G-Unit on February 19, 2017, 08:23:35 AM
Basically the SC ruled that because they had once been arguidos that they should not be allowed to considered innocent becuase the case against them was shelved. Which is a crock of shit really when you think about it.
Wrong. They ruled that they cannot argue that the archiving dispatch cleared them. They also ruled that the presumption of innocence is related to criminal, not civil cases. That was because of what the first judge said;
But is, in this case, the protection of the appellants' rights to their good name and reputation closely related to the presumption of innocence, as said in the first instance's sentence?
Title: Re: Supreme Court rules against the McCanns in damages case.
Post by: G-Unit on February 19, 2017, 08:29:48 AM
Wrong. They ruled that they cannot argue that the archiving dispatch cleared them. They also ruled that the presumption of innocence is related to criminal, not civil cases. That was because of what the first judge said;
But is, in this case, the protection of the appellants' rights to their good name and reputation closely related to the presumption of innocence, as said in the first instance's sentence?
Presumption of innocence in the case of a disappearing child would be a criminal not a civil matter so that's an irrelevant point afaic. Why did the Supreme Court pass judgement on concerns regarding the abduction theory?
Title: Re: Supreme Court rules against the McCanns in damages case.
Post by: Brietta on February 19, 2017, 09:21:36 AM
Do you deny every basic right the McCanns are entitled to if not by decency but by law?
It is their right to challenge an outrageous written judgement which of itself defamed them. It is a pity you cannot take a step back and look at the likely repercussions of what these individuals said in their ruling.
There is no need to 'interpret' their meaning because they have been unashamedly unambiguous in their choice of phrase. Which has been picked up and reported verbatim in MSM and met with paroxysms of ecstasy from one end of the 'sceptic' network to the other.
Judges just cannot behave in the way these three have without their actions being called into question.
They are not a law unto themselves ... although they seem to think they are.
It is the twenty first century and Portugal is a player on the world stage as a modern democracy. In that context the rest of the civilised world must be looking at this judgement in complete puzzlement.
Title: Re: Supreme Court rules against the McCanns in damages case.
Post by: stephen25000 on February 19, 2017, 09:26:13 AM
Do you deny every basic right the McCanns are entitled to if not by decency but by law?
It is their right to challenge an outrageous written judgement which of itself defamed them. It is a pity you cannot take a step back and look at the likely repercussions of what these individuals said in their ruling.
There is no need to 'interpret' their meaning because they have been unashamedly unambiguous in their choice of phrase. Which has been picked up and reported verbatim in MSM and met with paroxysms of ecstasy from one end of the 'sceptic' network to the other.
Judges just cannot behave in the way these three have without their actions being called into question.
They are not a law unto themselves ... although they seem to think they are.
It is the twenty first century and Portugal is a player on the world stage as a modern democracy. In that context the rest of the civilised world must be looking at this judgement in complete puzzlement.
It is a matter of opinion as to whether it is an outrageous judgement.
The McCann's, and no one else are responsible for what has happened in the court action.
They have not been denied basic rights.
Perhaps you would like to provide cites from the rest of the civilized world.
Meanwhile, as I said, it is a delaying tactic, no more, no less.
Title: Re: Supreme Court rules against the McCanns in damages case.
Post by: G-Unit on February 19, 2017, 09:28:25 AM
Presumption of innocence in the case of a disappearing child would be a criminal not a civil matter so that's an irrelevant point afaic. Why did the Supreme Court pass judgement on concerns regarding the abduction theory?
Why argue about something you don't understand?
It all stems from either the first judgement's arguments or the McCann's arguments brought to the SC appeal. They are answering points, not raising them.
Title: Re: Supreme Court rules against the McCanns in damages case.
Post by: barrier on February 19, 2017, 09:29:19 AM
Judges just cannot behave in the way these three have without their actions being called into question.
They are not a law unto themselves ... although they seem to think they are.
It is the twenty first century and Portugal is a player on the world stage as a modern democracy. In that context the rest of the civilised world must be looking at this judgement in complete puzzlement.
That being the case,then the McCanns and their lawyers need to go above the courts and appeal to the government,its them that make the rules,judges interpret them,there is no higher court than the Supreme one is there?
Title: Re: Supreme Court rules against the McCanns in damages case.
Post by: Benice on February 19, 2017, 09:32:03 AM
In his report the AG said:
'' none of the indications that led to their constitution as arguidos was later confirmed or consolidated.'' He did not say 'some' of the indications, he said NONE of the indications.
IOW out of the whole of the evidence the PJ presented against the McCanns - none of it turned out to be viable/proved when tested/investigated and was therefore quite rightly discounted as evidence against them.
Just how SC judges can ignore the fact that none of the alleged evidence against them was upheld and make the following claim is beyond comprehension IMO.
Quote - Mirror The court concluded that the archiving of the case should not be seen as proof the McCanns are not guilty, stating: “It doesn’t therefore seem acceptable that the ruling, based on the insufficiency of evidence, should be equated to proof of innocence. End quote
That statement strongly infers that the judges believe there is evidence in existence which proves the McCanns guilt - it just hasn't been found.
That is an outrageous assumption to make and completely ignores the most obvious reason why no evidence has been found by anyone against the McCanns in the last 10 years - and that is because no such evidence exists.
It also destroys at a stroke the right to the presumption of innocence until proved guilty.
The real criminal(s) must be overjoyed.
AIMHO
Title: Re: Supreme Court rules against the McCanns in damages case.
Post by: G-Unit on February 19, 2017, 09:32:50 AM
Do you deny every basic right the McCanns are entitled to if not by decency but by law?
It is their right to challenge an outrageous written judgement which of itself defamed them. It is a pity you cannot take a step back and look at the likely repercussions of what these individuals said in their ruling.
There is no need to 'interpret' their meaning because they have been unashamedly unambiguous in their choice of phrase. Which has been picked up and reported verbatim in MSM and met with paroxysms of ecstasy from one end of the 'sceptic' network to the other.
Judges just cannot behave in the way these three have without their actions being called into question.
They are not a law unto themselves ... although they seem to think they are.
It is the twenty first century and Portugal is a player on the world stage as a modern democracy. In that context the rest of the civilised world must be looking at this judgement in complete puzzlement.
''It is their right to challenge an outrageous written judgement which of itself defamed them''.
Please could you explain why the judgement is 'outrageous' and just how it defames the McCanns?
Title: Re: Supreme Court rules against the McCanns in damages case.
Post by: Alfie on February 19, 2017, 09:35:56 AM
It all stems from either the first judgement's arguments or the McCann's arguments brought to the SC appeal. They are answering points, not raising them.
kindly don't patronze me, I understand quite well enough to know that the SC judgement was cleverly calculated to inflict maximum damage on the McCanns and for that reason cannot be considered fair or just.
Title: Re: Supreme Court rules against the McCanns in damages case.
Post by: stephen25000 on February 19, 2017, 09:37:45 AM
'' none of the indications that led to their constitution as arguidos was later confirmed or consolidated.'' He did not say 'some' of the indications, he said NONE of the indications.
IOW out of the whole of the evidence the PJ presented against the McCanns - none of it turned out to be viable/proved when tested/investigated and was therefore quite rightly discounted as evidence against them.
Just how SC judges can ignore the fact that none of the alleged evidence against them was upheld and make the following claim is beyond comprehension IMO.
Quote - Mirror The court concluded that the archiving of the case should not be seen as proof the McCanns are not guilty, stating: “It doesn’t therefore seem acceptable that the ruling, based on the insufficiency of evidence, should be equated to proof of innocence. End quote
That statement strongly infers that the judges believe there is evidence in existence which proves the McCanns guilt - it just hasn't been found.
That is an outrageous assumption to make and completely ignores the most obvious reason why no evidence has been found by anyone against the McCanns in the last 10 years - and that is because no such evidence exists.
It also destroys at a stroke the right to the presumption of innocence until proved guilty.
The real criminal(s) must be overjoyed.
AIMHO
What real criminals ?
There is no evidence that there was anyone in the apartment that night, other than those known to be there.
Title: Re: Supreme Court rules against the McCanns in damages case.
Post by: Alfie on February 19, 2017, 09:44:13 AM
if the McCanns cannot be comsidered innocent then what is their lawful status, currently? Not innocent? Is that a thing?
Title: Re: Supreme Court rules against the McCanns in damages case.
Post by: G-Unit on February 19, 2017, 09:44:31 AM
'' none of the indications that led to their constitution as arguidos was later confirmed or consolidated.'' He did not say 'some' of the indications, he said NONE of the indications.
IOW out of the whole of the evidence the PJ presented against the McCanns - none of it turned out to be viable/proved when tested/investigated and was therefore quite rightly discounted as evidence against them.
Just how SC judges can ignore the fact that none of the alleged evidence against them was upheld and make the following claim is beyond comprehension IMO.
Quote - Mirror The court concluded that the archiving of the case should not be seen as proof the McCanns are not guilty, stating: “It doesn’t therefore seem acceptable that the ruling, based on the insufficiency of evidence, should be equated to proof of innocence. End quote
That statement strongly infers that the judges believe there is evidence in existence which proves the McCanns guilt - it just hasn't been found.
That is an outrageous assumption to make and completely ignores the most obvious reason why no evidence has been found by anyone against the McCanns in the last 10 years - and that is because no such evidence exists.
It also destroys at a stroke the right to the presumption of innocence until proved guilty.
The real criminal(s) must be overjoyed.
AIMHO
First of all, the Attorney General wrote no report. If you are referring to the Legal Summary it was not written by the Attorney General.
All the AG did was issue a press release which appears to have said;
By the dispatch of today’s date (21.07.2008 ) issued by the two magistrates of the Public Ministry competent in the case, it was decided that the inquiry relating to the disappearance of the minor Madeleine McCann will be archived due to insufficient proof of any crime having been perpetrated by the arguidos. https://hypocriteandliar.wordpress.com/tag/gerry-and-kate-mccann/
Title: Re: Supreme Court rules against the McCanns in damages case.
Post by: barrier on February 19, 2017, 09:46:30 AM
First of all, the Attorney General wrote no report. If you are referring to the Legal Summary it was not written by the Attorney General.
All the AG did was issue a press release which appears to have said;
By the dispatch of today’s date (21.07.2008 ) issued by the two magistrates of the Public Ministry competent in the case, it was decided that the inquiry relating to the disappearance of the minor Madeleine McCann will be archived due to insufficient proof of any crime having been perpetrated by the arguidos. https://hypocriteandliar.wordpress.com/tag/gerry-and-kate-mccann/
Can you not find a better source than a blog entitled "hypocriteandliar", one which is chockablock with libellous posts?
Title: Re: Supreme Court rules against the McCanns in damages case.
Post by: faithlilly on February 19, 2017, 09:57:30 AM
Why in heaven's name would the SC judges wish to inflict any more damage on the McCanns than they have already suffered? Why do supporters think this was personal?
Title: Re: Supreme Court rules against the McCanns in damages case.
Post by: G-Unit on February 19, 2017, 10:00:47 AM
kindly don't patronze me, I understand quite well enough to know that the SC judgement was cleverly calculated to inflict maximum damage on the McCanns and for that reason cannot be considered fair or just.
If you understand the judgement why do your posts misrepresent what it said? Is that deliberate?
Now you are saying, in effect, that three judges of the Portuguese Supreme Court plotted to inflict damage on the McCanns. That is an amazing accusation to make without any evidence to support it. Unless you have evidence, that is?
Title: Re: Supreme Court rules against the McCanns in damages case.
Post by: G-Unit on February 19, 2017, 10:02:18 AM
If you understand the judgement why do your posts misrepresent what it said? Is that deliberate?
Now you are saying, in effect, that three judges of the Portuguese Supreme Court plotted to inflict damage on the McCanns. That is an amazing accusation to make without any evidence to support it. Unless you have evidence, that is?
The evidence is 76 pages long and it's on this forum somewhere.
Title: Re: Supreme Court rules against the McCanns in damages case.
Post by: Alfie on February 19, 2017, 10:10:48 AM
I could, but I'm not the one supplying the cite. You have by linking to a highly libellous blog which you KNOW is against forum rules. Perhaps since the SC ruling you think it doesn't matter so much now, eh?
Title: Re: Supreme Court rules against the McCanns in damages case.
Post by: stephen25000 on February 19, 2017, 10:34:24 AM
Can the McCann supporters on here answer a simple question.
What would have happened to Amaral's book , if the Mccann's hadn't given it publicity by their court actions ?
Title: Re: Supreme Court rules against the McCanns in damages case.
Post by: G-Unit on February 19, 2017, 10:34:36 AM
The evidence is 76 pages long and it's on this forum somewhere.
If you think that a written judgement which you don't agree with is evidence that three SC judges plotted to damage the McCanns you don't understand the meaning of evidence.
Title: Re: Supreme Court rules against the McCanns in damages case.
Post by: Robittybob1 on February 19, 2017, 10:37:46 AM
If you think that a written judgement which you don't agree with is evidence that three SC judges plotted to damage the McCanns you don't understand the meaning of evidence.
It appears as frivolous damaging evidence to me. Looks like we need to go through it sentence by sentence.
Title: Re: Supreme Court rules against the McCanns in damages case.
Post by: G-Unit on February 19, 2017, 10:49:48 AM
If you think that a written judgement which you don't agree with is evidence that three SC judges plotted to damage the McCanns you don't understand the meaning of evidence.
Can I ask you: does the SC judgement give you absolutely no reason to believe that the judges have implied at any point that the McCanns may not actually be innocent and that the abduction theory causes them serious concerns?
Title: Re: Supreme Court rules against the McCanns in damages case.
Post by: G-Unit on February 19, 2017, 11:11:34 AM
Can I ask you: does the SC judgement give you absolutely no reason to believe that the judges have implied at any point that the McCanns may not actually be innocent and that the abduction theory causes them serious concerns?
The judges made it quite clear that the archiving dispatch is not designed to 'clear' anyone, that it did not 'clear' anyone and that the McCanns cannot claim that it did.
The judges implied nothing.
Title: Re: Supreme Court rules against the McCanns in damages case.
Post by: Mr Gray on February 19, 2017, 11:25:12 AM
The judges made it quite clear that the archiving dispatch is not designed to 'clear' anyone, that it did not 'clear' anyone and that the McCanns cannot claim that it did.
The judges implied nothing.
they certainly implied the mccanns could not claim to be innocent and that is the whole point...they should be able to claim they are innocent
Title: Re: Supreme Court rules against the McCanns in damages case.
Post by: G-Unit on February 19, 2017, 11:39:08 AM
Why in heaven's name would the SC judges wish to inflict any more damage on the McCanns than they have already suffered? Why do supporters think this was personal?
Lack of objectivity coupled with a lack of understanding of the law I guess 8(0(*
Title: Re: Supreme Court rules against the McCanns in damages case.
Post by: Alfie on February 19, 2017, 01:35:48 PM
The judges made it quite clear that the archiving dispatch is not designed to 'clear' anyone, that it did not 'clear' anyone and that the McCanns cannot claim that it did.
The judges implied nothing.
Can the McCanns claim that in the eyes of the law they are innocent or does having once been an arguido mean that they cannot make that claim ever again?
Title: Re: Supreme Court rules against the McCanns in damages case.
Post by: Brietta on February 19, 2017, 01:49:09 PM
That being the case,then the McCanns and their lawyers need to go above the courts and appeal to the government,its them that make the rules,judges interpret them,there is no higher court than the Supreme one is there?
Perhaps this time round the Supreme Court might manage to rumble up appeal judges who are capable of ruling according to law and not prejudice.
Title: Re: Supreme Court rules against the McCanns in damages case.
Post by: Mr Gray on February 19, 2017, 01:51:32 PM
so to those claiming that is the final verdict...last week...lol...
so how long will this hearing take and is there an appeal process if the application is refused
Title: Re: Supreme Court rules against the McCanns in damages case.
Post by: stephen25000 on February 19, 2017, 02:03:00 PM
The Mccann's appeal is a delay tactic and no more than that.
Only if it comforts you to say so.
Having been misinformed there was no appeal and being daft enough to accept that despite the sources, I thought the only recourse was to the European court.
Personally I would have given the McCanns only a very slight chance of success in a properly conducted appeal process, and thought they might not even bother appealing that decision. That was prior to reading the judgement.
The appeal court judges have gone out of their way to overstep the mark in their ruling in every which way it was possible to do so. They have made it impossible for the injured parties to ignore their judgement. In my opinion it is worth mentioning that not only has their obvious bias been deliberately injurious to Madeleine and her family it has called Portuguese law into disrepute.
Title: Re: Supreme Court rules against the McCanns in damages case.
Post by: Brietta on February 19, 2017, 02:47:41 PM
Why would the judges be prejudiced against the McCanns ? Surely they're not jealous of their good looks and success too ?
I do not have the slightest idea and it may have come as a bit of a surprise to those in authority in Portugal too. It is my understanding that there is a concerted effort in the Republic to reform all systems of public service ~ one can see why if this abrogation of rights is allowed to pass as precedent into Portuguese jurisprudence.
Title: Re: Supreme Court rules against the McCanns in damages case.
Post by: stephen25000 on February 19, 2017, 02:50:46 PM
Having been misinformed there was no appeal and being daft enough to accept that despite the sources, I thought the only recourse was to the European court.
Personally I would have given the McCanns only a very slight chance of success in a properly conducted appeal process, and thought they might not even bother appealing that decision. That was prior to reading the judgement.
The appeal court judges have gone out of their way to overstep the mark in their ruling in every which way it was possible to do so. They have made it impossible for the injured parties to ignore their judgement. In my opinion it is worth mentioning that not only has their obvious bias been deliberately injurious to Madeleine and her family it has called Portuguese law into disrepute.
Your opinion Brietta is of no consequence whatsoever.
This remains a delay tactic.
It won't change the outcome,bat the McCann's paying extra costs.
The McCann's will merely peeve off the Portuguese judiciary and people, even more than have done already.
Title: Re: Supreme Court rules against the McCanns in damages case.
Post by: stephen25000 on February 19, 2017, 02:52:02 PM
I do not have the slightest idea and it may have come as a bit of a surprise to those in authority in Portugal too. It is my understanding that there is a concerted effort in the Republic to reform all systems of public service ~ one can see why if this abrogation of rights is allowed to pass as precedent into Portuguese jurisprudence.
The starting point for pretty much everyone in Portugal is that the McCanns dunnit (thanks to the relentless propganda against them over 10years) so it's not surprising that even the judges were biased against them. In my opinion they wanted also to teach them a lesson for years of perceived slights against Portugal, its tourist industry and judicial system. All in my opinion, I'll probably end up getting sued by the Portuguese for saying so of course. It's alright to defame the parents of a missing child but woe betide anyone who slags off a PT judge!!
Title: Re: Supreme Court rules against the McCanns in damages case.
Post by: stephen25000 on February 19, 2017, 02:58:24 PM
By the way Brietta, all this will achieve, other than peeving the Portuguese, is show even more people how arrogant the McCanns are, and give an even bigger audience to Amaral.
The McCanns, are in many ways, their own worst enemies.
Title: Re: Supreme Court rules against the McCanns in damages case.
Post by: Alice Purjorick on February 19, 2017, 03:47:53 PM
so to those claiming that is the final verdict...last week...lol...
so how long will this hearing take and is there an appeal process if the application is refused
The complaint can actually be binned by the first person to read it if they are of sufficient rank within the judiciary and consider that the complaint lacks merit.
Title: Re: Supreme Court rules against the McCanns in damages case.
Post by: kizzy on February 19, 2017, 03:57:15 PM
Confirms that they haven't gone to ECHR yet and this is just a 'formal complaint '. Unbelievable arrogance.
And what a nugget:
According to the latest accounts filed last month the couple’s Find Madeleine fund has just £200,000 left after half a million was placed in investments.
Experts say legal fees and a possible pay-out to Amaral would easily dwarf this sum, leaving no cash left to continue the couple’s efforts to find their daughter.
Title: Re: Supreme Court rules against the McCanns in damages case.
Post by: Mr Gray on February 19, 2017, 03:59:34 PM
The complaint can actually be binned by the first person to read it if they are of sufficient rank within the judiciary and consider that the complaint lacks merit.
cite and you havent answerred the question
Title: Re: Supreme Court rules against the McCanns in damages case.
Post by: Robittybob1 on February 19, 2017, 04:47:45 PM
The complaint can actually be binned by the first person to read it if they are of sufficient rank within the judiciary and consider that the complaint lacks merit.
Luckily it doesn't lack merit.
Title: Re: Supreme Court rules against the McCanns in damages case.
Post by: barrier on February 19, 2017, 04:55:19 PM
Confirms that they haven't gone to ECHR yet and this is just a 'formal complaint '. Unbelievable arrogance.
And what a nugget:
According to the latest accounts filed last month the couple’s Find Madeleine fund has just £200,000 left after half a million was placed in investments.
Experts say legal fees and a possible pay-out to Amaral would easily dwarf this sum, leaving no cash left to continue the couple’s efforts to find their daughter.
As with everything and anything there is a process to be gone through. A beginning a middle and an end. If there remains justice in Portugal, the McCanns may well find it unnecessary to progress to the end stage which is the European Court.
They have the legal right to appeal the judgement made against them. That displays pragmatism ~ hardly arrogance. What is rather obscure is your reasoning by which you would deny them their rights in law.
The 'nugget' you proclaim (in your opinion a golden one perhaps) is nought but an old chestnut. I am afraid the eagerness to halt the search for Madeleine McCann has been palpable ~ in my opinion ~ over the years since her disappearance. The sentiment has featured amongst sceptic posts from twitter - to facebook - to youtube - to blog - to newspaper replies under articles and back again.
Although just one amongst many I find it the most unedifying aspect displayed by sceptics and in common with all else had its genesis with Amaral and his 'fraudulent fund'.
Title: Re: Supreme Court rules against the McCanns in damages case.
Post by: stephen25000 on February 19, 2017, 05:17:45 PM
As with everything and anything there is a process to be gone through. A beginning a middle and an end. If there remains justice in Portugal, the McCanns may well find it unnecessary to progress to the end stage which is the European Court.
They have the legal right to appeal the judgement made against them. That displays pragmatism ~ hardly arrogance. What is rather obscure is your reasoning by which you would deny them their rights in law.
The 'nugget' you proclaim (in your opinion a golden one perhaps) is nought but an old chestnut. I am afraid the eagerness to halt the search for Madeleine McCann has been palpable ~ in my opinion ~ over the years since her disappearance. The sentiment has featured amongst sceptic posts from twitter - to facebook - to youtube - to blog - to newspaper replies under articles and back again.
Although just one amongst many I find it the most unedifying aspect displayed by sceptics and in common with all else had its genesis with Amaral and his 'fraudulent fund'.
Give it a break.
The fund was set up to help Amaral to cover his legal expenses, and any excess to go to charity.
Meanwhile people donating to the Mccann's would have thought, that primnarily it was for searching for their daughter.
Not to be used for 'legal expenses'.
Title: Re: Supreme Court rules against the McCanns in damages case.
Post by: Robittybob1 on February 19, 2017, 05:20:52 PM
How many people who initially donated assumed that it would be to search for their daughter ?
Did these people!e expect to pay the McCann's legal expenses, PR representatives, personal living expenses, travel and hotel accommodation ?
You really could not make any of this up.
Who knows the answer to that? Have you done the study?
Title: Re: Supreme Court rules against the McCanns in damages case.
Post by: Robittybob1 on February 19, 2017, 05:33:20 PM
The child minding was mentioned in the SC judgement IIRC. OK I can't recall if they mentioned the McCann fund. I'm sure they did, directly or indirectly.
Title: Re: Supreme Court rules against the McCanns in damages case.
Post by: Alice Purjorick on February 19, 2017, 05:36:47 PM
As with everything and anything there is a process to be gone through. A beginning a middle and an end. If there remains justice in Portugal, the McCanns may well find it unnecessary to progress to the end stage which is the European Court.
They have the legal right to appeal the judgement made against them. That displays pragmatism ~ hardly arrogance. What is rather obscure is your reasoning by which you would deny them their rights in law.
The 'nugget' you proclaim (in your opinion a golden one perhaps) is nought but an old chestnut. I am afraid the eagerness to halt the search for Madeleine McCann has been palpable ~ in my opinion ~ over the years since her disappearance. The sentiment has featured amongst sceptic posts from twitter - to facebook - to youtube - to blog - to newspaper replies under articles and back again.
Although just one amongst many I find it the most unedifying aspect displayed by sceptics and in common with all else had its genesis with Amaral and his 'fraudulent fund'.
1.To what end? 2.That is questionable. Do you have evidence that the Portuguese system allows appeal against the judgement of the highest court in their land? Please share, it will make interesting reading providing an opportunity for the unedified sceptics to be better informed. 3. Again do you have evidence that the fund for Sr Amarals legal fees is in fact fraudulent. Or is your usage of speechy marky pieces significant?
Seems to me like the usual huffing and puffing without about three lin.m of cut and paste.
Title: Re: Supreme Court rules against the McCanns in damages case.
Post by: Robittybob1 on February 19, 2017, 05:37:20 PM
1.To what end? 2.That is questionable. Do you have evidence that the Portuguese system allows appeal against the judgement of the highest court in their land? Please share, it will make interesting reading providing an opportunity for the unedified sceptics to be better informed. 3. Again do you have evidence that the fund for Sr Amarals legal fees is in fact fraudulent. Or is your usage of speechy marky pieces significant?
Seems to me like the usual huffing and puffing without about three lin.m of cut and paste.
Good questions thanks Alice.
Title: Re: Supreme Court rules against the McCanns in damages case.
Post by: G-Unit on February 19, 2017, 05:45:22 PM
Can the McCanns claim that in the eyes of the law they are innocent or does having once been an arguido mean that they cannot make that claim ever again?
They can claim anything they like except that the archiving dispatch 'cleared' them.
Title: Re: Supreme Court rules against the McCanns in damages case.
Post by: Robittybob1 on February 19, 2017, 05:48:05 PM
Having been misinformed there was no appeal and being daft enough to accept that despite the sources, I thought the only recourse was to the European court.
Personally I would have given the McCanns only a very slight chance of success in a properly conducted appeal process, and thought they might not even bother appealing that decision. That was prior to reading the judgement.
The appeal court judges have gone out of their way to overstep the mark in their ruling in every which way it was possible to do so. They have made it impossible for the injured parties to ignore their judgement. In my opinion it is worth mentioning that not only has their obvious bias been deliberately injurious to Madeleine and her family it has called Portuguese law into disrepute.
In which way have the judges 'gone out of their way to overstep the mark'? Such statements mean nothing unless they are explained imo. You are accusing them of deliberately attacking the McCann family. How?
Title: Re: Supreme Court rules against the McCanns in damages case.
Post by: G-Unit on February 19, 2017, 06:01:21 PM
Thic case has not been about Madeleine since the first judge dismissed the claims made on her behalf. It has been solely about her parents, no-one else.
They thought the archiving dispatch 'cleared' them but that wasn't it's function.
Title: Re: Supreme Court rules against the McCanns in damages case.
Post by: G-Unit on February 19, 2017, 06:10:29 PM
The forum's analysis seems to consist of people accusing the judges of being biased and of plotting to make the McCann family suffer. People then accuse the judges of saying things they didn't say to 'prove' it. They provide no cites to support their accusations and ignore those who do provide cites showing what the judges actually said and why.
Title: Re: Supreme Court rules against the McCanns in damages case.
Post by: barrier on February 19, 2017, 06:10:54 PM
Thic case has not been about Madeleine since the first judge dismissed the claims made on her behalf. It has been solely about her parents, no-one else.
They thought the archiving dispatch 'cleared' them but that wasn't it's function.
This case is about Madeleine McCann from first to last.
Title: Re: Supreme Court rules against the McCanns in damages case.
Post by: Brietta on February 19, 2017, 07:14:25 PM
The forum's analysis seems to consist of people accusing the judges of being biased and of plotting to make the McCann family suffer. People then accuse the judges of saying things they didn't say to 'prove' it. They provide no cites to support their accusations and ignore those who do provide cites showing what the judges actually said and why.
The forum has taken no collective view on this matter. Any such suggestion is inaccurate.
Title: Re: Supreme Court rules against the McCanns in damages case.
Post by: slartibartfast on February 19, 2017, 07:15:41 PM
The children's claims were dismissed by the first judge;
VIII. Fully dismiss the requests made in the attached action by the claimants MADELEINE MCCANN, SEAN MICHAEL MCCANN and AMELIE EVE MCCANN. http://miscarriageofjustice.co/index.php?topic=6307.0
Those are the facts, upon which an opinion can be based that the children were not involved from 27th April 2015. Which facts are your opinion based on?
Title: Re: Supreme Court rules against the McCanns in damages case.
Post by: stephen25000 on February 19, 2017, 08:13:21 PM
The children's claims were dismissed by the first judge;
VIII. Fully dismiss the requests made in the attached action by the claimants MADELEINE MCCANN, SEAN MICHAEL MCCANN and AMELIE EVE MCCANN. http://miscarriageofjustice.co/index.php?topic=6307.0
Those are the facts, upon which an opinion can be based that the children were not involved from 27th April 2015. Which facts are your opinion based on?
Precisely.
Well said.
Title: Re: Supreme Court rules against the McCanns in damages case.
Post by: Alfie on February 20, 2017, 04:26:59 AM
The forum's analysis seems to consist of people accusing the judges of being biased and of plotting to make the McCann family suffer. People then accuse the judges of saying things they didn't say to 'prove' it. They provide no cites to support their accusations and ignore those who do provide cites showing what the judges actually said and why.
The SC judges expressed serious concerns about the abduction theory - can you please explain why?
Title: Re: Supreme Court rules against the McCanns in damages case.
Post by: G-Unit on February 20, 2017, 08:36:09 AM
If you care to provide the quote, in context, I will offer an opinion.
can't cut and paste at the moment, sorry, I'm sure someone else will oblige.
Title: Re: Supreme Court rules against the McCanns in damages case.
Post by: Alfie on February 20, 2017, 09:57:28 AM
pg 66 of the judgement refers to serious concerns about the abduction theory and more or less blames the McCanns for these because they did not occur the reconstitution which a) they didn't refuse to attend and b) would have not helped in any way whatsoever to advance the investigation into an abduction.
Title: Re: Supreme Court rules against the McCanns in damages case.
Post by: Robittybob1 on February 20, 2017, 10:42:33 AM
pg 66 of the judgement refers to serious concerns about the abduction theory and more or less blames the McCanns for these because they did not occur the reconstitution which a) they didn't refuse to attend and b) would have not helped in any way whatsoever to advance the investigation into an abduction.
Which bit did you want? "Page 66 … the indications and means of proof hitherto collected in it, and the inquiries that had hitherto been carried out.
That is why it is not surprising that the facts related to that investigation that the respondent refers to in the book, in the interview and in the documentary, are mostly facts that occurred and were documented in this investigation (n°80 of the proven facts).
It should be noted that the understanding defended by the respondent was, also, in almost coincident terms, shared by chief inspector Tavares de Almeida, who wrote the report addressed to the Public Ministry and dated 10/9/7 (n° 9 of the proven facts).
It has to be reckoned yet that the Public Ministry by promoting by the Instruction Judge the obtention of traffic data., alluded to their need for the investigation of the crimes of kidnapping, homicide, exposure or abandonment and concealment of a corpse, the sought to be obtained data were besides connected to the appellants and included not only the date of the facts but also the period they were in Portugal (n°10 of the proven facts).
These data were collected by the Instruction Judge (n° 11 of the proved fact).
Which means that the thesis profiled by the respondent, at a certain time, These data were collected by the Investigating Judge (point I I of the facts provided).
Which means that the thesis profiled by the course, at a certain time, deserved being hosted by the entity constitutionally in charge of the exercise of the penal action.
By the way. The defendants constituted as defendants in the criminal investigation (point S of the evidence). This implies that they have been alleged to have committed crimes or crimes (cf.host by the entity constitutionally in charge of the exercise of the action
As a matter of fact, the appellants were constituted arguidos (formal suspects) in the same criminal investigation (n°8 of the proven facts).
This implies that emerged a well-founded suspicion they had committed crime or crimes (cf. art. 58° and 59° of the CPP).
It is true that the criminal investigation was eventually closed, in particular because none of the indications which led to the constitution of the appellants as arguidos was subsequently confirmed or consolidated (n°15 of the proven facts).
However, even in the filing order serious reservations are raised as to the likelihood of the allegation that Madeleine had been abducted. Taking into account the doubts raised by the Jane Tanner/Kate McCann version.
Those doubts that the investigation intended to see clarified by the reconstitution of the events mentioned in the closing dispatch, an initiative however that was made unfeasible by the witnesses' failure to appear after being summoned to."
Title: Re: Supreme Court rules against the McCanns in damages case.
Post by: G-Unit on February 20, 2017, 10:52:53 AM
pg 66 of the judgement refers to serious concerns about the abduction theory and more or less blames the McCanns for these because they did not occur the reconstitution which a) they didn't refuse to attend and b) would have not helped in any way whatsoever to advance the investigation into an abduction.
You will note that the judges refer to the 'witnesses' failure to appear, not the McCann's. Below are some of the concerns with the abduction theory which the reconstitution may have clarified.
Page 66
However, even in the filing order serious reservations are raised as to the likelihood of the allegation that Madeleine had been abducted. Taking into account the doubts raised by the Jane Tanner/Kate McCann version.
Those doubts that the investigation intended to see clarified by the reconstitution of the events mentioned in the closing dispatch, an initiative however that was made unfeasible by the witnesses' failure to appear after being summoned to.
From the analysis of the total of depositions that were made, the existence of important details that were not fully understood and integrated became evident;..... it was decided to carry out the "reconstitution of the fact", a diligence that is consecrated in article 150 of the Penal Process Code in the sense of duly clarifying, on the very location of the facts , the following very important details, among others:
The physical, real and effective proximity between Jane Tanner, Gerald McCann and Jeremy Wilkins, at the moment when the first person walked by them, and which coincided with the sighting of the supposed suspect, carrying a child. It results, in our perspective, strange that neither Gerald McCann nor Jeremy Wilkins saw her, or the alleged abductor, despite the exiguity of the space and the peacefulness of the area;
2 - The situation concerning the window to the bedroom where Madeleine slept, together with the twins, which was open, according to Kate. It seemed then necessary to clarify if there was a draught, since movement of the curtains and pressure under the bedroom door are mentioned, which, eventually, could be verified through the reconstitution;.....
and the appearance of the witnesses was requested, inviting them to be present.............Nevertheless, despite national authorities assuming all measures to render their trip to Portugal viable, for unknown motives, after the many doubts that they raised about the necessity and opportunity of their trip were clarified several times, they chose not to attend, which rendered the diligence inviable. http://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/PJ/LEGAL_SUMMARY.htm
Title: Re: Supreme Court rules against the McCanns in damages case.
Post by: Robittybob1 on February 20, 2017, 04:31:08 PM
You will note that the judges refer to the 'witnesses' failure to appear, not the McCann's. Below are some of the concerns with the abduction theory which the reconstitution may have clarified.
Page 66
However, even in the filing order serious reservations are raised as to the likelihood of the allegation that Madeleine had been abducted. Taking into account the doubts raised by the Jane Tanner/Kate McCann version.
Those doubts that the investigation intended to see clarified by the reconstitution of the events mentioned in the closing dispatch, an initiative however that was made unfeasible by the witnesses' failure to appear after being summoned to.
From the analysis of the total of depositions that were made, the existence of important details that were not fully understood and integrated became evident;..... it was decided to carry out the "reconstitution of the fact", a diligence that is consecrated in article 150 of the Penal Process Code in the sense of duly clarifying, on the very location of the facts , the following very important details, among others:
The physical, real and effective proximity between Jane Tanner, Gerald McCann and Jeremy Wilkins, at the moment when the first person walked by them, and which coincided with the sighting of the supposed suspect, carrying a child. It results, in our perspective, strange that neither Gerald McCann nor Jeremy Wilkins saw her, or the alleged abductor, despite the exiguity of the space and the peacefulness of the area;
2 - The situation concerning the window to the bedroom where Madeleine slept, together with the twins, which was open, according to Kate. It seemed then necessary to clarify if there was a draught, since movement of the curtains and pressure under the bedroom door are mentioned, which, eventually, could be verified through the reconstitution;.....
and the appearance of the witnesses was requested, inviting them to be present.............Nevertheless, despite national authorities assuming all measures to render their trip to Portugal viable, for unknown motives, after the many doubts that they raised about the necessity and opportunity of their trip were clarified several times, they chose not to attend, which rendered the diligence inviable. http://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/PJ/LEGAL_SUMMARY.htm
Did the McCanns refuse to attend? If they didn't why are they being blamed for the failure of the reconstruction to eventuate?
Title: Re: Supreme Court rules against the McCanns in damages case.
Post by: slartibartfast on February 20, 2017, 05:09:03 PM
Did the McCanns refuse to attend? If they didn't why are they being blamed for the failure of the reconstruction to eventuate?
Do you ascribe to the view that if the McCanns had said look T7 we need to do this reconstitution to help find Maddie, the T7 would have said, sorry McCanns it's not convenient?
Title: Re: Supreme Court rules against the McCanns in damages case.
Post by: G-Unit on February 20, 2017, 05:15:40 PM
Did the McCanns refuse to attend? If they didn't why are they being blamed for the failure of the reconstruction to eventuate?
No they didn't, and no-one blamed them, despite what Alfie said. If you read the cites, both the Legal summary and the Supreme Court judges say it was the witnesses who wouldn't do it, not the McCanns.
Title: Re: Supreme Court rules against the McCanns in damages case.
Post by: ferryman on February 20, 2017, 05:16:05 PM
There isn't a 'view', just an irrefutable fact.
There was never the slightest chance of a reconstruction contributing anything to the quest for truth about what happened to Madeleine.
Title: Re: Supreme Court rules against the McCanns in damages case.
Post by: stephen25000 on February 20, 2017, 05:18:02 PM
No they didn't, and no-one blamed them, despite what Alfie said. If you read the cites, both the Legal summary and the Supreme Court judges say it was the witnesses who wouldn't do it, not the McCanns.
So the McCaans weren't witnesses then?
Title: Re: Supreme Court rules against the McCanns in damages case.
Post by: G-Unit on February 21, 2017, 09:31:59 AM
Do you ascribe to the view that if the McCanns had said look T7 we need to do this reconstitution to help find Maddie, the T7 would have said, sorry McCanns it's not convenient?
I know Jez Wilkins was hard to contact. Gerry tried and Jez complained. So I don't think Jez was ever intending to attend no matter who asked him nicely.
Title: Re: Supreme Court rules against the McCanns in damages case.
Post by: Robittybob1 on February 21, 2017, 11:07:39 AM
"could be verified through the reconstitution;.....
and the appearance of the witnesses was requested, inviting them to be present.............Nevertheless, despite national authorities assuming all measures to render their trip to Portugal viable, for unknown motives, after the many doubts that they raised about the necessity and opportunity of their trip were clarified several times, they chose not to attend, which rendered the diligence inviable." That bit is a bit ambiguous for not all the T9 plus Jez refused to return to do a reconstruction. When the write "they" it seems the judges are talking about the McCanns, but the McCanns did not refuse to go. I still find it weird that the McCanns are made to suffer for mistakes made by other parties.
Title: Re: Supreme Court rules against the McCanns in damages case.
Post by: jassi on February 21, 2017, 12:21:28 PM
I know Jez Wilkins was hard to contact. Gerry tried and Jez complained. So I don't think Jez was ever intending to attend no matter who asked him nicely.
He was tired of being pestered by McCann. If UK police had told him he should attend, I think it likely he would have done so
Title: Re: Supreme Court rules against the McCanns in damages case.
Post by: Alfie on February 21, 2017, 02:40:01 PM
You will note that the judges refer to the 'witnesses' failure to appear, not the McCann's. Below are some of the concerns with the abduction theory which the reconstitution may have clarified.
Page 66
However, even in the filing order serious reservations are raised as to the likelihood of the allegation that Madeleine had been abducted. Taking into account the doubts raised by the Jane Tanner/Kate McCann version.
Those doubts that the investigation intended to see clarified by the reconstitution of the events mentioned in the closing dispatch, an initiative however that was made unfeasible by the witnesses' failure to appear after being summoned to.
From the analysis of the total of depositions that were made, the existence of important details that were not fully understood and integrated became evident;..... it was decided to carry out the "reconstitution of the fact", a diligence that is consecrated in article 150 of the Penal Process Code in the sense of duly clarifying, on the very location of the facts , the following very important details, among others:
The physical, real and effective proximity between Jane Tanner, Gerald McCann and Jeremy Wilkins, at the moment when the first person walked by them, and which coincided with the sighting of the supposed suspect, carrying a child. It results, in our perspective, strange that neither Gerald McCann nor Jeremy Wilkins saw her, or the alleged abductor, despite the exiguity of the space and the peacefulness of the area;
2 - The situation concerning the window to the bedroom where Madeleine slept, together with the twins, which was open, according to Kate. It seemed then necessary to clarify if there was a draught, since movement of the curtains and pressure under the bedroom door are mentioned, which, eventually, could be verified through the reconstitution;.....
and the appearance of the witnesses was requested, inviting them to be present.............Nevertheless, despite national authorities assuming all measures to render their trip to Portugal viable, for unknown motives, after the many doubts that they raised about the necessity and opportunity of their trip were clarified several times, they chose not to attend, which rendered the diligence inviable. http://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/PJ/LEGAL_SUMMARY.htm
Point 2. The situation concerning the window (though what in Christ's name this has got to do with the case the SC judged on I have no idea) - it would not have been necessary to have ANY of the witnesses there to test the theory that a draught could have moved door and curtains, though how any reconstitution hoped to recreate the exact weather conditions of that evening is quite another matter. But seriously what is this "serious concerns about abduction theory" all about and why did the SC judges highlight these rather lame issues which hardly raise SERIOUS concerns?
Title: Re: Supreme Court rules against the McCanns in damages case.
Post by: G-Unit on February 21, 2017, 02:47:04 PM
And no-one has said they refused. So what is your point?
My point is that the SC judges expressed "serious concerns" about the abduction theory - why? Was it necessary to pass judgment on the abduction theory and in so doing imply something amiss with the McCanns' version of events?
Title: Re: Supreme Court rules against the McCanns in damages case.
Post by: slartibartfast on February 21, 2017, 04:38:38 PM
My point is that the SC judges expressed "serious concerns" about the abduction theory - why? Was it necessary to pass judgment on the abduction theory and in so doing imply something amiss with the McCanns' version of events?
To be accurate, the SC said that the filing order raised serious questions. But hey, don't let the facts get in the way of your slant.
Title: Re: Supreme Court rules against the McCanns in damages case.
Post by: Robittybob1 on February 21, 2017, 06:52:00 PM
To be accurate, the SC said that the filing order raised serious questions. But hey, don't let the facts get in the way of your slant.
By saying that does that point a slant on their judgement too. So did they say this because they agreed something "raised serious questions". What exactly were the serious questions raised?
Title: Re: Supreme Court rules against the McCanns in damages case.
Post by: slartibartfast on February 21, 2017, 06:54:31 PM
By saying that does that point a slant on their judgement too. So did they say this because they agreed something "raised serious questions". What exactly were the serious questions raised?
They were not commenting on the Validity of the archiving report just that it said it.
Title: Re: Supreme Court rules against the McCanns in damages case.
Post by: stephen25000 on February 21, 2017, 07:06:24 PM
A brief reminder, as it seems some people need it.
The Supreme Court used the original archiving report.
It was very clear cut.
Now the question remains, why didn't Duarte and the Mccann's complain then ?
Their appeal doesn't add up.
Title: Re: Supreme Court rules against the McCanns in damages case.
Post by: Robittybob1 on February 21, 2017, 07:15:52 PM
They were not commenting on the Validity of the archiving report just that it said it.
I would be concerned that repeating it does validate it. It seems to suggest they agree without actually saying it themselves. If it had no relevance or meaning why was it said?
Title: Re: Supreme Court rules against the McCanns in damages case.
Post by: slartibartfast on February 21, 2017, 07:36:11 PM
I would be concerned that repeating it does validate it. It seems to suggest they agree without actually saying it themselves. If it had no relevance or meaning why was it said?
Has anyone objected to the archiving report?
Title: Re: Supreme Court rules against the McCanns in damages case.
Post by: Robittybob1 on February 21, 2017, 07:47:16 PM
Was that in 2008? I wouldn't be sure but I could imagine Kate McCann complaining that it showed how one eyed the whole investigation was. It would need research. If she did there would be a mention in her book.
Title: Re: Supreme Court rules against the McCanns in damages case.
Post by: stephen25000 on February 21, 2017, 07:51:06 PM
Was that in 2008? I wouldn't be sure but I could imagine Kate McCann complaining that it showed how one eyed the whole investigation was. It would need research. If she did there would be a mention in her book.
How come Rob, people with an ounce of common sense, already know what the archiving report said ?
Title: Re: Supreme Court rules against the McCanns in damages case.
Post by: Robittybob1 on February 21, 2017, 07:53:31 PM
Kate and Gerry McCann have threatened to sue Portuguese police for the bungled probe into their daughter Madeleine’s disappearance. http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/uk-news/mccanns-threaten-to-sue-portuguese-police-319643
Title: Re: Supreme Court rules against the McCanns in damages case.
Post by: Eleanor on February 21, 2017, 09:53:03 PM
Kate and Gerry McCann have threatened to sue Portuguese police for the bungled probe into their daughter Madeleine’s disappearance. http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/uk-news/mccanns-threaten-to-sue-portuguese-police-319643
Merci beaucoup. If you think that this is a fact, of course.
Title: Re: Supreme Court rules against the McCanns in damages case.
Post by: Robittybob1 on February 21, 2017, 11:11:47 PM
Kate and Gerry McCann have threatened to sue Portuguese police for the bungled probe into their daughter Madeleine’s disappearance. http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/uk-news/mccanns-threaten-to-sue-portuguese-police-319643
That is pretty "old" news.
Title: Re: Supreme Court rules against the McCanns in damages case.
Post by: Robittybob1 on February 21, 2017, 11:26:13 PM
We already know Rob, the McCann's didn't, and you know that.
Well I didn't know that actually. I could imagine they were relieved that they felt cleared. They may have felt cleared then even if they have now been told they weren't cleared. I am reading the chapter "Closing the case" and it doesn't read that the McCanns were cheered by that fact. I'll see if the text is on the internet later.
Title: Re: Supreme Court rules against the McCanns in damages case.
Post by: G-Unit on February 22, 2017, 07:00:27 AM
what is astonishing about teh SC statement is they are giving their opinions when there is an open ongoing police investigation...how bizarre is that
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.
Title: Re: Supreme Court rules against the McCanns in damages case.
Post by: Robittybob1 on February 22, 2017, 08:47:31 AM
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.
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?
Title: Re: Supreme Court rules against the McCanns in damages case.
Post by: jassi on February 22, 2017, 08:57:52 AM
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?
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
Title: Re: Supreme Court rules against the McCanns in damages case.
Post by: G-Unit on February 22, 2017, 09:01:27 AM
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.
Title: Re: Supreme Court rules against the McCanns in damages case.
Post by: Mr Gray on February 22, 2017, 09:16:10 AM
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
Title: Re: Supreme Court rules against the McCanns in damages case.
Post by: Robittybob1 on February 22, 2017, 09:19:37 AM
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.
Title: Re: Supreme Court rules against the McCanns in damages case.
Post by: jassi on February 22, 2017, 09:23:53 AM
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.
Title: Re: Supreme Court rules against the McCanns in damages case.
Post by: Robittybob1 on February 22, 2017, 09:25:28 AM
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.
Title: Re: Supreme Court rules against the McCanns in damages case.
Post by: jassi on February 22, 2017, 09:26:10 AM
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.
Title: Re: Supreme Court rules against the McCanns in damages case.
Post by: Robittybob1 on February 22, 2017, 09:32:48 AM
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.
Title: Re: Supreme Court rules against the McCanns in damages case.
Post by: Robittybob1 on February 22, 2017, 09:34:47 AM
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.
Title: Re: Supreme Court rules against the McCanns in damages case.
Post by: Mr Gray on February 22, 2017, 09:44:03 AM
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
Title: Re: Supreme Court rules against the McCanns in damages case.
Post by: G-Unit on February 22, 2017, 09:55:04 AM
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 ."
Title: Re: Supreme Court rules against the McCanns in damages case.
Post by: stephen25000 on February 22, 2017, 10:14:59 AM
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 ?
Title: Re: Supreme Court rules against the McCanns in damages case.
Post by: G-Unit on February 22, 2017, 10:15:45 AM
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.
Title: Re: Supreme Court rules against the McCanns in damages case.
Post by: Robittybob1 on February 22, 2017, 10:22:35 AM
Well who's words opinions are these? Page 66 "However, even in the filing dispatch serious reservations are raised as to the likelihood of the allegation that Madeleine had been abducted, in view of the doubts raised by the Jane Tanner/Kate McCann version.
The investigation intended to see clarified those doubts by the reconstitution of the events mentioned in the closing dispatch, an initiative however that was made unfeasible by the witnesses' failure to appear after being summoned to."
Title: Re: Supreme Court rules against the McCanns in damages case.
Post by: jassi on February 22, 2017, 10:24:29 AM
Well who's words opinions are these? Page 66 "However, even in the filing dispatch serious reservations are raised as to the likelihood of the allegation that Madeleine had been abducted, in view of the doubts raised by the Jane Tanner/Kate McCann version.
The investigation intended to see clarified those doubts by the reconstitution of the events mentioned in the closing dispatch, an initiative however that was made unfeasible by the witnesses' failure to appear after being summoned to."
Am I right in assuming that the 'filing dispatch' is the archiving report?
If so Amaral had nothing to do with that so they aren't his words.
Title: Re: Supreme Court rules against the McCanns in damages case.
Post by: G-Unit on February 22, 2017, 10:27:20 AM
Well who's words opinions are these? Page 66 "However, even in the filing dispatch serious reservations are raised as to the likelihood of the allegation that Madeleine had been abducted, in view of the doubts raised by the Jane Tanner/Kate McCann version.
The investigation intended to see clarified those doubts by the reconstitution of the events mentioned in the closing dispatch, an initiative however that was made unfeasible by the witnesses' failure to appear after being summoned to."
Well done, they are the words of the SC judges. Would you describe them as referring to 'the present' as davel asserted, or to the past, as they are referring to something written in 2008?
Title: Re: Supreme Court rules against the McCanns in damages case.
Post by: Robittybob1 on February 22, 2017, 10:28:59 AM
Well I didn't know that actually. I could imagine they were relieved that they felt cleared. They may have felt cleared then even if they have now been told they weren't cleared. I am reading the chapter "Closing the case" and it doesn't read that the McCanns were cheered by that fact. I'll see if the text is on the internet later.
They knew they were not cleared.
“While one or both of them may be innocent, there is no clear evidence that eliminates them from involvement in Madeleine's disappearance.” - Said by the Assistant Chief Constable of Leicestershire, in an official submission of Leicester Police to the Family Division of the High Court.
July 2008
Due to the fact that Kate and Gerry place their daughter's case under the guardianship of the High Court, judge Justice Hogg ordered, one month ago, for any relevant information to locate the little girl should be made available to the McCanns, including documents from the English police. The Leicestershire police defied the judge's order and did not comply. Thus, yesterday's session was scheduled. A deal was reached. Leicestershire police agreed to deliver 81 files out of a total of 11 thousand. Each one of those 81 files contains the name of a witness, his or her contact and a summary of the information that was given. Since yesterday, the McCanns' lawyers and the private detectives at the couple's service can contact those witnesses and again follow leads that were already investigated by the English police.
"The decision from the British justice says a lot about the power and the influence that the McCanns hold", a source from the Polícia Judiciária commented to 24horas. The same source remembers that the secrecy of justice is not at issue "because the files that were released by the Leicestershire police were not shared with the PJ at the level of judiciary cooperation and are not very relevant".
Mr James Lewis QC, for the Chief Constable of Leicestershire:
We would like you to approve the Order. As the Court heard, any person served with the Order should disclose any information that would help to find Madeleine. We wish to make it clear that the primary aim is to ensure that no stone is left unturned.
There must be a balance between the rights of Plaintiffs to have as much information as possible and the risk of compromising the continuing criminal investigation, damaging future international co-operation, and a potential breach of Portuguese law. The parents get information that emanates from them and there is no breach of Portuguese law.
The Chief Constable asks the Court to make clear that previous Orders don't apply. The case is not closed. The Chief Constable wishes to reiterate anyone with information should come forward to the police. The amount of information is 81 pieces of information out of 11,000 pieces of information on the computer system.
Title: Re: Supreme Court rules against the McCanns in damages case.
Post by: Robittybob1 on February 22, 2017, 10:37:34 AM
“While one or both of them may be innocent, there is no clear evidence that eliminates them from involvement in Madeleine's disappearance.” - Said by the Assistant Chief Constable of Leicestershire, in an official submission of Leicester Police to the Family Division of the High Court.
July 2008
Due to the fact that Kate and Gerry place their daughter's case under the guardianship of the High Court, judge Justice Hogg ordered, one month ago, for any relevant information to locate the little girl should be made available to the McCanns, including documents from the English police. The Leicestershire police defied the judge's order and did not comply. Thus, yesterday's session was scheduled. A deal was reached. Leicestershire police agreed to deliver 81 files out of a total of 11 thousand. Each one of those 81 files contains the name of a witness, his or her contact and a summary of the information that was given. Since yesterday, the McCanns' lawyers and the private detectives at the couple's service can contact those witnesses and again follow leads that were already investigated by the English police.
"The decision from the British justice says a lot about the power and the influence that the McCanns hold", a source from the Polícia Judiciária commented to 24horas. The same source remembers that the secrecy of justice is not at issue "because the files that were released by the Leicestershire police were not shared with the PJ at the level of judiciary cooperation and are not very relevant".
Mr James Lewis QC, for the Chief Constable of Leicestershire:
We would like you to approve the Order. As the Court heard, any person served with the Order should disclose any information that would help to find Madeleine. We wish to make it clear that the primary aim is to ensure that no stone is left unturned.
There must be a balance between the rights of Plaintiffs to have as much information as possible and the risk of compromising the continuing criminal investigation, damaging future international co-operation, and a potential breach of Portuguese law. The parents get information that emanates from them and there is no breach of Portuguese law.
The Chief Constable asks the Court to make clear that previous Orders don't apply. The case is not closed. The Chief Constable wishes to reiterate anyone with information should come forward to the police. The amount of information is 81 pieces of information out of 11,000 pieces of information on the computer system.
And Kate says much the same in her book. So why did they argue differently in Court?
Title: Re: Supreme Court rules against the McCanns in damages case.
Post by: stephen25000 on February 22, 2017, 10:40:21 AM
The British government's Foreign & Commonwealth Office also made their view clear, post-arguido, in December 2009, when responding to a Freedom of Information request about the missing child, Ben Needham. They wrote: 'You will also be aware of the Madeleine McCann case. Both this and the Needham case are categorised as a missing persons, rather than child abduction cases, as there is no evidence in either case to support whether the children were or were not abducted.'
And Kate says much the same in her book. So why did they argue differently in Court?
Apparently in their 'complaint' Duarte says;
“The appellants understand the archiving of the case took place because during the inquiry, sufficient evidence had been collected to show the ‘arguidos’ had not committed any crime.”
Although the Attorney General said in 2008;
"By the dispatch of today’s date (21.07.2008 ) issued by the two magistrates of the Public Ministry competent in the case, it was decided that the inquiry relating to the disappearance of the minor Madeleine McCann will be archived due to insufficient proof of any crime having been perpetrated by the arguidos."
And the Assistant Chief Constable of Leicester Police said in 2008;
“While one or both of them may be innocent, there is no clear evidence that eliminates them from involvement in Madeleine's disappearance.”
It seems the appellant's understanding differs from that of those better qualified to judge, including Portugal's senior judges, but that's nothing new, is it?
Title: Re: Supreme Court rules against the McCanns in damages case.
Post by: slartibartfast on February 22, 2017, 02:05:31 PM
“The appellants understand the archiving of the case took place because during the inquiry, sufficient evidence had been collected to show the ‘arguidos’ had not committed any crime.”
Although the Attorney General said in 2008;
"By the dispatch of today’s date (21.07.2008 ) issued by the two magistrates of the Public Ministry competent in the case, it was decided that the inquiry relating to the disappearance of the minor Madeleine McCann will be archived due to insufficient proof of any crime having been perpetrated by the arguidos."
And the Assistant Chief Constable of Leicester Police said in 2008;
“While one or both of them may be innocent, there is no clear evidence that eliminates them from involvement in Madeleine's disappearance.”
It seems the appellant's understanding differs from that of those better qualified to judge, including Portugal's senior judges, but that's nothing new, is it?
Right, so the AG said in 2008. So FM was wrong.
Title: Re: Supreme Court rules against the McCanns in damages case.
Post by: ferryman on February 22, 2017, 03:12:08 PM
“While one or both of them may be innocent, there is no clear evidence that eliminates them from involvement in Madeleine's disappearance.” - Said by the Assistant Chief Constable of Leicestershire, in an official submission of Leicester Police to the Family Division of the High Court.
July 2008
Due to the fact that Kate and Gerry place their daughter's case under the guardianship of the High Court, judge Justice Hogg ordered, one month ago, for any relevant information to locate the little girl should be made available to the McCanns, including documents from the English police. The Leicestershire police defied the judge's order and did not comply. Thus, yesterday's session was scheduled. A deal was reached. Leicestershire police agreed to deliver 81 files out of a total of 11 thousand. Each one of those 81 files contains the name of a witness, his or her contact and a summary of the information that was given. Since yesterday, the McCanns' lawyers and the private detectives at the couple's service can contact those witnesses and again follow leads that were already investigated by the English police.
"The decision from the British justice says a lot about the power and the influence that the McCanns hold", a source from the Polícia Judiciária commented to 24horas. The same source remembers that the secrecy of justice is not at issue "because the files that were released by the Leicestershire police were not shared with the PJ at the level of judiciary cooperation and are not very relevant".
Mr James Lewis QC, for the Chief Constable of Leicestershire:
We would like you to approve the Order. As the Court heard, any person served with the Order should disclose any information that would help to find Madeleine. We wish to make it clear that the primary aim is to ensure that no stone is left unturned.
There must be a balance between the rights of Plaintiffs to have as much information as possible and the risk of compromising the continuing criminal investigation, damaging future international co-operation, and a potential breach of Portuguese law. The parents get information that emanates from them and there is no breach of Portuguese law.
The Chief Constable asks the Court to make clear that previous Orders don't apply. The case is not closed. The Chief Constable wishes to reiterate anyone with information should come forward to the police. The amount of information is 81 pieces of information out of 11,000 pieces of information on the computer system.
Why on earth is Pathfinder allowed to get away with this?
What he quotes was about a month before the first enquiry was shelved, when no one (least of all the deputy Chief Constable of Leicestershire Police) had read the files. While he is not guilty of libel, Pathfinder certainly is, for repeating what the Deputy Chief Constable said without proper context.
Title: Re: Supreme Court rules against the McCanns in damages case.
Post by: ShiningInLuz on February 22, 2017, 03:44:20 PM
Why on earth is Pathfinder allowed to get away with this?
What he quotes was about a month before the first enquiry was shelved, when no one (least of all the deputy Chief Constable of Leicestershire Police) had read the files. While he is not guilty of libel, Pathfinder certainly is, for repeating what the Deputy Chief Constable said without proper context.
'Fraid you've lost me. The DCC had access to 11,000 pieces of information, of which 81 were released to the McCanns. I make that around 10,919 pieces of information we are somewhat clueless about.
Title: Re: Supreme Court rules against the McCanns in damages case.
Post by: ferryman on February 22, 2017, 04:38:10 PM
'Fraid you've lost me. The DCC had access to 11,000 pieces of information, of which 81 were released to the McCanns. I make that around 10,919 pieces of information we are somewhat clueless about.
The police files had not been released at that point.
Title: Re: Supreme Court rules against the McCanns in damages case.
Post by: jassi on February 22, 2017, 04:44:45 PM
Presumably the DCC was basing his comments on information held by his own force.
Title: Re: Supreme Court rules against the McCanns in damages case.
Post by: Robittybob1 on February 22, 2017, 05:04:00 PM
Presumably the DCC was basing his comments on information held by his own force.
That seems to be a logical conclusion.
"Although the Attorney General said in 2008;
"By the dispatch of today’s date (21.07.2008 ) issued by the two magistrates of the Public Ministry competent in the case, it was decided that the inquiry relating to the disappearance of the minor Madeleine McCann will be archived due to insufficient proof of any crime having been perpetrated by the arguidos." I think the McCann team should have been happy with that statement. Rehashed that becomes "there is insufficient proof of any crime having been perpetrated by the McCanns". Would that have been enough? For it seems that is the function of the investigators i.e to find evidence. But I can see the point also that every test performed that yields a null result could be thought of as evidence in favour of the McCanns.
Title: Re: Supreme Court rules against the McCanns in damages case.
Post by: Robittybob1 on February 22, 2017, 05:13:42 PM
The police files had not been released at that point.
So the Assistant Chief Constable based his opinion on what? Complete ignorance of the evidence which had been collected in Portugal? He would have looked silly if the files had been full of clear evidence exonerating the McCanns, wouldn't he? I think LP were kept informed of events in Portugal and the ACC was speaking from a position of knowledge.
Title: Re: Supreme Court rules against the McCanns in damages case.
Post by: Robittybob1 on February 22, 2017, 08:00:05 PM
So the Assistant Chief Constable based his opinion on what? Complete ignorance of the evidence which had been collected in Portugal? He would have looked silly if the files had been full of clear evidence exonerating the McCanns, wouldn't he? I think LP were kept informed of events in Portugal and the ACC was speaking from a position of knowledge.
You would imagine some degree of communication.
Title: Re: Supreme Court rules against the McCanns in damages case.
Post by: ferryman on February 22, 2017, 08:09:08 PM
“The appellants understand the archiving of the case took place because during the inquiry, sufficient evidence had been collected to show the ‘arguidos’ had not committed any crime.”
Although the Attorney General said in 2008;
"By the dispatch of today’s date (21.07.2008 ) issued by the two magistrates of the Public Ministry competent in the case, it was decided that the inquiry relating to the disappearance of the minor Madeleine McCann will be archived due to insufficient proof of any crime having been perpetrated by the arguidos."
And the Assistant Chief Constable of Leicester Police said in 2008;
“While one or both of them may be innocent, there is no clear evidence that eliminates them from involvement in Madeleine's disappearance.”
It seems the appellant's understanding differs from that of those better qualified to judge, including Portugal's senior judges, but that's nothing new, is it?
The McCanns were still arguidos at the time. No way would the ACC of Leicester police do anything which in any way inferred that UK police believed the PJ was wrong to make them arguidos - even if they did think that. It would have caused a diplomatic incident and damaged relations between the two police forces. So he chose the middle 'diplomatic' road.
IMO the McCanns were badly advised to make that request whilst they were still arguidos.
Title: Re: Supreme Court rules against the McCanns in damages case.
Post by: G-Unit on February 23, 2017, 08:42:07 AM
The McCanns were still arguidos at the time. No way would the ACC of Leicester police do anything which in any way inferred that UK police believed the PJ was wrong to make them arguidos - even if they did think that. It would have caused a diplomatic incident and damaged relations between the two police forces. So he chose the middle 'diplomatic' road.
IMO the McCanns were badly advised to make that request whilst they were still arguidos.
He could have remained silent, but he chose to speak. Kate McCann gave an interesting insight into her thought processes as a result;
All of this the assistant chief constable for Leicestershire made clear in a statement written for the court. He had come out to Portugal shortly after Madeleine’s abduction and had seen us at our most grief stricken, and yet he felt able to comment of Gerry and me in this statement: ‘While one or both of them may be innocent, there is no clear evidence that eliminates them from involvement in Madeleine’s disappearance.’ We were completely staggered. No evidence to eliminate us? [madeleine]
According to Kate, the ACC had seen their grief. Does grief equal innocence? That seems to be what she thinks, because she offers no other evidence which could eliminate them. Very faulty logic, just like her comments about Paiva;
Ricardo Paiva played a more prominent role in the interrogation this time, which did nothing to maintain my equilibrium. This was the man who had invited us to his home for dinner. Our children had played with his son. ‘ [Madeleine]
Here she is assuming that because Paiva socialised with them he should or would let that influence him when he was working.
Title: Re: Supreme Court rules against the McCanns in damages case.
Post by: Benice on February 23, 2017, 10:08:36 AM
He could have remained silent, but he chose to speak. Kate McCann gave an interesting insight into her thought processes as a result;
All of this the assistant chief constable for Leicestershire made clear in a statement written for the court. He had come out to Portugal shortly after Madeleine’s abduction and had seen us at our most grief stricken, and yet he felt able to comment of Gerry and me in this statement: ‘While one or both of them may be innocent, there is no clear evidence that eliminates them from involvement in Madeleine’s disappearance.’ We were completely staggered. No evidence to eliminate us? [madeleine]
According to Kate, the ACC had seen their grief. Does grief equal innocence? That seems to be what she thinks, because she offers no other evidence which could eliminate them. Very faulty logic, just like her comments about Paiva;
Ricardo Paiva played a more prominent role in the interrogation this time, which did nothing to maintain my equilibrium. This was the man who had invited us to his home for dinner. Our children had played with his son. ‘ [Madeleine]
Here she is assuming that because Paiva socialised with them he should or would let that influence him when he was working.
I can fully understand how upsetting Kate would find that statement by the ACC in the circumstances she describes. A very natural, human response IMO.
IMO they were wrongly advised to make a request for files while they were arguidos. This put the UK police in a position which could have been viewed by the PJ as them 'taking sides'. No matter what the UK police did or didn't believe privately - they had a duty to respect the PJ's decisions publicly. And that's what they did imo.
I can also understand how upset Kate would feel about Paiava - because she had genuinely believed that her family had a genuine, friendly relationship with him and his family.
Any normal person experiencing someone consistently being nice to their face and then suddenly stabbing them in the back - would be very unhappy with such treatment. Why you would expect Kate to have a different reaction to anyone else - I have no idea.
Title: Re: Supreme Court rules against the McCanns in damages case.
Post by: Robittybob1 on February 23, 2017, 10:45:39 AM
He could have remained silent, but he chose to speak. Kate McCann gave an interesting insight into her thought processes as a result;
All of this the assistant chief constable for Leicestershire made clear in a statement written for the court. He had come out to Portugal shortly after Madeleine’s abduction and had seen us at our most grief stricken, and yet he felt able to comment of Gerry and me in this statement: ‘While one or both of them may be innocent, there is no clear evidence that eliminates them from involvement in Madeleine’s disappearance.’ We were completely staggered. No evidence to eliminate us? [madeleine]
According to Kate, the ACC had seen their grief. Does grief equal innocence? That seems to be what she thinks, because she offers no other evidence which could eliminate them. Very faulty logic, just like her comments about Paiva;
Ricardo Paiva played a more prominent role in the interrogation this time, which did nothing to maintain my equilibrium. This was the man who had invited us to his home for dinner. Our children had played with his son. ‘ [Madeleine]
Here she is assuming that because Paiva socialised with them he should or would let that influence him when he was working.
Is that another clear understanding by Kate that there was no evidence that cleared them? That is why I am finding it hard to believe they claimed that they were "cleared". Maybe it is a translation problem?
Title: Re: Supreme Court rules against the McCanns in damages case.
Post by: slartibartfast on February 23, 2017, 11:15:17 AM
Is that another clear understanding by Kate that there was no evidence that cleared them? That is why I am finding it hard to believe they claimed that they were "cleared". Maybe it is a translation problem?
Maybe they started to believe their own PR?
Title: Re: Supreme Court rules against the McCanns in damages case.
Post by: Miss Taken Identity on February 23, 2017, 11:48:42 AM
Oh I don't think they needed much convincing of their own PR They became quite savvy very quickly. They got a story- ran with it- caught the hearts of people, by hob nobbing ith the 'good and the great' photos with the pope, PM phone calls all in Gerrys diary... so proud they were...the Oprah Winfrey show wow !
Title: Re: Supreme Court rules against the McCanns in damages case.
Post by: Brietta on February 23, 2017, 04:06:25 PM
Oh I don't think they needed much convincing of their own PR They became quite savvy very quickly. They got a story- ran with it- caught the hearts of people, by hob nobbing ith the 'good and the great' photos with the pope, PM phone calls all in Gerrys diary... so proud they were...the Oprah Winfrey show wow !
The 'story they ran with' to which you refer was the disappearance without trace of their dearly loved eldest child.
Absolutely shameful that there are those who have denigrated their efforts on her behalf for very close on ten years ... inclusive of the superhuman effort of being responsible for getting initially Scotland Yard to start a proper investigation of Madeleine McCann's case which was closely followed by the Policia Judiciaria.
Title: Re: Supreme Court rules against the McCanns in damages case.
Post by: slartibartfast on February 23, 2017, 04:11:48 PM
The 'story they ran with' to which you refer was the disappearance without trace of their dearly loved eldest child.
Absolutely shameful that there are those who have denigrated their efforts on her behalf for very close on ten years ... inclusive of the superhuman effort of being responsible for getting initially Scotland Yard to start a proper investigation of Madeleine McCann's case which was closely followed by the Policia Judiciaria.
I'm pretty sure it wasn't superhuman.
Title: Re: Supreme Court rules against the McCanns in damages case.
Post by: barrier on February 23, 2017, 04:26:26 PM
The 'story they ran with' to which you refer was the disappearance without trace of their dearly loved eldest child.
Absolutely shameful that there are those who have denigrated their efforts on her behalf for very close on ten years ... inclusive of the superhuman effort of being responsible for getting initially Scotland Yard to start a proper investigation of Madeleine McCann's case which was closely followed by the Policia Judiciaria.
I suppose eliminating all and sundry is a proper investigation,yet still there is nothing to suggest that there is a resolution coming any time soon.
Title: Re: Supreme Court rules against the McCanns in damages case.
Post by: Robittybob1 on February 23, 2017, 04:48:41 PM
Oh I don't think they needed much convincing of their own PR They became quite savvy very quickly. They got a story- ran with it- caught the hearts of people, by hob nobbing ith the 'good and the great' photos with the pope, PM phone calls all in Gerrys diary... so proud they were...the Oprah Winfrey show wow !
You sound jealous!
Title: Re: Supreme Court rules against the McCanns in damages case.
Post by: Robittybob1 on February 23, 2017, 04:50:46 PM
I suppose eliminating all and sundry is a proper investigation,yet still there is nothing to suggest that there is a resolution coming any time soon.
Well we are often told that the first step would have been to investigate and eliminate the McCanns. I wonder if they've told the Supreme Court judges? Not that it would make any difference, of course, because the judges were answering Duarte's claim that they were cleared by the archiving dispatch.
Title: Re: Supreme Court rules against the McCanns in damages case.
Post by: Robittybob1 on February 23, 2017, 04:58:01 PM
Well we are often told that the first step would have been to investigate and eliminate the McCanns. I wonder if they've told the Supreme Court judges? Not that it would make any difference, of course, because the judges were answering Duarte's claim that they were cleared by the archiving dispatch.
Did Duarte have her client's permission to state that?
Title: Re: Supreme Court rules against the McCanns in damages case.
Post by: G-Unit on February 23, 2017, 05:03:59 PM
I suppose eliminating all and sundry is a proper investigation,yet still there is nothing to suggest that there is a resolution coming any time soon.
Without the former there would be no possibility of the latter ... and perhaps if that necessary diligence had been carried out at a much earlier date there might have been a higher probability to square the circle.
Title: Re: Supreme Court rules against the McCanns in damages case.
Post by: barrier on February 23, 2017, 05:49:04 PM
Without the former there would be no possibility of the latter ... and perhaps if that necessary diligence had been carried out at a much earlier date there might have been a higher probability to square the circle.
Seriously! 710 eliminated at the last official announcement,they were all in Portugal? all those folks and not one can give (or maybe apart from the Smiths) a clue to what happened.Not forgetting 8,000+ possible world wide sightings when there isn't any thing to suggest Madeleine even left the country.
Title: Re: Supreme Court rules against the McCanns in damages case.
Post by: Brietta on February 23, 2017, 06:04:46 PM
Seriously! 710 eliminated at the last official announcement,they were all in Portugal? all those folks and not one can give (or maybe apart from the Smiths) a clue to what happened.
Madeleine went missing in Portugal ... is it your opinion that no-one in Portugal knows anything about that?
Title: Re: Supreme Court rules against the McCanns in damages case.
Post by: jassi on February 23, 2017, 06:08:11 PM
I'm sure the Portuguese police know all about it. It may well be that the perpetrator of the crime( if there was a crime) was not a Portuguese national.
Title: Re: Supreme Court rules against the McCanns in damages case.
Post by: barrier on February 23, 2017, 06:21:23 PM
I'm sure the PJ do,they are waiting for SY to catch up.
Why on earth would the Policia Judiciaria wait for any foreign force to play catch up or anything else with them other than an exchange of information?
The PJ have primacy. It is their case.
If they have information ... why would you suppose they would not act on it?
Title: Re: Supreme Court rules against the McCanns in damages case.
Post by: jassi on February 23, 2017, 07:47:27 PM
They may not have jurisdiction
Title: Re: Supreme Court rules against the McCanns in damages case.
Post by: Miss Taken Identity on February 23, 2017, 09:55:27 PM
The 'story they ran with' to which you refer was the disappearance without trace of their dearly loved eldest child.
Absolutely shameful that there are those who have denigrated their efforts on her behalf for very close on ten years ... inclusive of the superhuman effort of being responsible for getting initially Scotland Yard to start a proper investigation of Madeleine McCann's case which was closely followed by the Policia Judiciaria.
The story they ran with was an abduction! no other thesis was to be considered, or discussed. Especially in the UK Press.
Title: Re: Supreme Court rules against the McCanns in damages case.
Post by: Brietta on February 23, 2017, 10:43:49 PM
The story they ran with was an abduction! no other thesis was to be considered, or discussed. Especially in the UK Press.
The police decide on the path an investigation will take by following the evidence. The victims who are also witnesses give information pertaining to the crime.
The present Policia Justicaria investigation features heavily on abduction and possible connection to home invasions where children were assaulted.
The present Scotland Yard investigation also featured stranger abduction in relation to home invasions by burglars and home invasions featuring assaults on minors.
You are deluded if you believe the terms of either the PJ or SY investigations were dictated by the McCanns and not professional police work.
Title: Re: Supreme Court rules against the McCanns in damages case.
Post by: Miss Taken Identity on February 23, 2017, 11:10:09 PM
The police decide on the path an investigation will take by following the evidence. The victims who are also witnesses give information pertaining to the crime.
The present Policia Justicaria investigation features heavily on abduction and possible connection to home invasions where children were assaulted.
The present Scotland Yard investigation also featured stranger abduction in relation to home invasions by burglars and home invasions featuring assaults on minors.
You are deluded if you believe the terms of either the PJ or SY investigations were dictated by the McCanns and not professional police work.
"The present Policia Justicaria investigation features heavily on abduction and possible connection to home invasions where children were assaulted." My apologies I must have missed that statement, could you direct me to who made it and when? thankies in advance.
At last you are recognising police investigation- including the coordinator were professionals. Oh wait... are they only professionals because they are, according to your 'sauces', investigating an abduction based on connection to invasions by many people to many children? would these many people be UK residents who socialised with a known paedophile who had a home in the area?.
*&*%£ *&*%£ *&*%£
Title: Re: Supreme Court rules against the McCanns in damages case.
Post by: Robittybob1 on February 23, 2017, 11:43:03 PM
The police decide on the path an investigation will take by following the evidence. The victims who are also witnesses give information pertaining to the crime.
The present Policia Justicaria investigation features heavily on abduction and possible connection to home invasions where children were assaulted.
The present Scotland Yard investigation also featured stranger abduction in relation to home invasions by burglars and home invasions featuring assaults on minors.
You are deluded if you believe the terms of either the PJ or SY investigations were dictated by the McCanns and not professional police work.
You are deluded if you think the McCanns didn't interfere in the Portuguese investigation from the beginning. They named the crime, publicised it and began criticising the investigators before dawn on 4th May.
Title: Re: Supreme Court rules against the McCanns in damages case.
Post by: Robittybob1 on February 24, 2017, 07:01:51 AM
You are deluded if you think the McCanns didn't interfere in the Portuguese investigation from the beginning. They named the crime, publicised it and began criticising the investigators before dawn on 4th May.
All I can think is they are allowed to do this. There was no law against it. The Portuguese just needed to be resilient. Things like that should not have put them off.
Title: Re: Supreme Court rules against the McCanns in damages case.
Post by: Alfie on February 24, 2017, 07:08:14 AM
You are deluded if you think the McCanns didn't interfere in the Portuguese investigation from the beginning. They named the crime, publicised it and began criticising the investigators before dawn on 4th May.
That's idiotic. It is perfectly reasonable to expect parents in that situation to believe their child has been abducted, to publicise it and even criticise the efforts made to find her if they feel not enough is being done. It is not interfering with a police investigation. I suppose in a similar situation you would have voiced no opinion, said nothing to anyone, kept scthum througout. Yeah right!
Title: Re: Supreme Court rules against the McCanns in damages case.
Post by: G-Unit on February 24, 2017, 07:50:23 AM
That's idiotic. It is perfectly reasonable to expect parents in that situation to believe their child has been abducted, to publicise it and even criticise the efforts made to find her if they feel not enough is being done. It is not interfering with a police investigation. I suppose in a similar situation you would have voiced no opinion, said nothing to anyone, kept scthum througout. Yeah right!
Of course it interfered, whatever their motives were.
Title: Re: Supreme Court rules against the McCanns in damages case.
Post by: Mr Gray on February 24, 2017, 08:10:32 AM
and you are deluded if you dont realise what a bungled investigation the pj carried out
Hmmm,the mighty MET have now at their head the officer in command of the bungled operation that lead to the death of an innocent man on the London underground,perhaps they are made for each other.
Mod Note: The jury at the inquest into the death of Jean Charles de Menezes returned an open verdict
Title: Re: Supreme Court rules against the McCanns in damages case.
Post by: Robittybob1 on February 24, 2017, 08:41:11 AM
Hmmm,the mighty MET have now at their head the officer in command of the bungled operation that lead to the murder of an innocent man on the London underground,perhaps they are made for each other.
Why the secrecy?
Title: Re: Supreme Court rules against the McCanns in damages case.
Post by: barrier on February 24, 2017, 08:43:43 AM
Why on earth would the Policia Judiciaria wait for any foreign force to play catch up or anything else with them other than an exchange of information?
The PJ have primacy. It is their case.
Correct,whilst the MET engage on their magical mystery tour spending millions there is nothing to indicate that the PJ are involved,they have let the met have a long rope and its tightening,the PJ have played a blinder.
Title: Re: Supreme Court rules against the McCanns in damages case.
Post by: Robittybob1 on February 24, 2017, 09:03:18 AM
Hmmm,the mighty MET have now at their head the officer in command of the bungled operation that lead to the murder of an innocent man on the London underground,perhaps they are made for each other.
Who, who and when?
Title: Re: Supreme Court rules against the McCanns in damages case.
Post by: stephen25000 on February 24, 2017, 09:07:41 AM
This report about the fallibility of memory refers to him.
Quote
In a crime situation memory is influenced by many factors such as stress, the presence of a weapon and even just the desire to help police solve the crime.
"Police know how fallible the memory can be," says Steve Retford, a former head of the investigative skills unit at GMP and now specialist interviewing adviser with the force.
"They also know this is usually not through mischievousness on the part of the witnesses, but through stress and shock."
Take the case of Jean Charles de Menezes, shot at Stockwell Tube station in 2005 by police who mistook him for a suicide bomber.
Eyewitnesses said he had vaulted a ticket barrier when running away from the police. In fact it was later shown by CCTV that Mr Menezes had walked through the barriers, having picked up a free newspaper, and only ran when he saw his train arriving. End quote
Title: Re: Supreme Court rules against the McCanns in damages case.
Post by: Robittybob1 on February 24, 2017, 09:20:21 AM
This report about the fallibility of memory refers to him.
Quote
In a crime situation memory is influenced by many factors such as stress, the presence of a weapon and even just the desire to help police solve the crime.
"Police know how fallible the memory can be," says Steve Retford, a former head of the investigative skills unit at GMP and now specialist interviewing adviser with the force.
"They also know this is usually not through mischievousness on the part of the witnesses, but through stress and shock."
Take the case of Jean Charles de Menezes, shot at Stockwell Tube station in 2005 by police who mistook him for a suicide bomber.
Eyewitnesses said he had vaulted a ticket barrier when running away from the police. In fact it was later shown by CCTV that Mr Menezes had walked through the barriers, having picked up a free newspaper, and only ran when he saw his train arriving. End quote
OK I thought he might be referring to that incident. So how does that fit into the rest of Barrier's post? "Hmmm,the mighty MET have now at their head the officer in command of the bungled operation that lead to the death of an innocent man on the London underground,perhaps they are made for each other."
So the person who is the head may not be the officer who pulled the trigger.
Title: Re: Supreme Court rules against the McCanns in damages case.
Post by: barrier on February 24, 2017, 11:09:32 AM
OK I thought he might be referring to that incident. So how does that fit into the rest of Barrier's post? "Hmmm,the mighty MET have now at their head the officer in command of the bungled operation that lead to the murder of an innocent man on the London underground,perhaps they are made for each other."
So the person who is the head may not be the officer who pulled the trigger.
If you bother to read actually read you will see I likened the the new head of the MET as being in the commander in charge of an operation that lead to the death of an innocent man on the London underground,this fits in nicely with the perceived( bungled by some) investigation into Madeleines disappearance,suitable bed fellows.I'm not saying that MET officers are bunglers but they belong to a force led by one who led a bungled operation.
Title: Re: Supreme Court rules against the McCanns in damages case.
Post by: G-Unit on February 24, 2017, 01:05:06 PM
If you bother to read actually read you will see I likened the the new head of the MET as being in the commander in charge of an operation that lead to the death of an innocent man on the London underground,this fits in nicely with the perceived( bungled by some) investigation into Madeleines disappearance,suitable bed fellows.I'm not saying that MET officers are bunglers but they belong to a force led by one who led a bungled operation.
I expect the Met do good work, but they've had their share of bungled investigations too. The one under discussion, Jill Dando, Stephen Lawrence, Stephen Port, and a deliberately bungled investigation by Ryan Coleman-Farrow to name but a few.
Title: Re: Supreme Court rules against the McCanns in damages case.
Post by: Robittybob1 on February 24, 2017, 02:08:28 PM
If you bother to read actually read you will see I likened the the new head of the MET as being in the commander in charge of an operation that lead to the death of an innocent man on the London underground,this fits in nicely with the perceived( bungled by some) investigation into Madeleines disappearance,suitable bed fellows.I'm not saying that MET officers are bunglers but they belong to a force led by one who led a bungled operation.
That is exactly why I thought you should have made your points clear right from the start. You were suggesting stuff and leaving it up to the readers. Bad!
Title: Re: Supreme Court rules against the McCanns in damages case.
Post by: stephen25000 on February 24, 2017, 02:13:58 PM
I can'tell post the link now , but there appears to be an interesting perspective on the Morais site as regards the Mccann'support attempt at the appeal against their 'frivolity allegation'.
If I have read it correctly, , the Judges could take action against the Mccann's for defamation.
Title: Re: Supreme Court rules against the McCanns in damages case.
Post by: John on February 24, 2017, 02:18:54 PM
I can'tell post the link now , but there appears to be an interesting perspective on the Morais site as regards the Mccann'support attempt at the appeal against their 'frivolity allegation'.
If I have read it correctly, , the Judges could take action against the Mccann's for defamation.
A lawyers dream.
Title: Re: Supreme Court rules against the McCanns in damages case.
Post by: jassi on February 24, 2017, 02:19:37 PM
I can'tell post the link now , but there appears to be an interesting perspective on the Morais site as regards the Mccann'support attempt at the appeal against their 'frivolity allegation'.
If I have read it correctly, , the Judges could take action against the Mccann's for defamation.
Will they bother or just brush them aside, as you would an insect ?
Title: Re: Supreme Court rules against the McCanns in damages case.
Post by: Robittybob1 on February 24, 2017, 02:22:03 PM
Not for the McCanns, there isn't. Very much a Pyrrhic victory at best and most likely a humiliating slap down.
Where did you get that word from? "Pyrrhic victory" I've never seen that word before. Google: "Pyrrhic victory is a victory that inflicts such a devastating toll on the victor that it is tantamount to defeat. Someone who wins a Pyrrhic victory has been victorious in some way. However, the heavy toll negates any sense of achievement or profit."
Title: Re: Supreme Court rules against the McCanns in damages case.
Post by: Alfie on February 24, 2017, 03:24:37 PM
We will never know how the investigation would have progressed had it not been interfered with.
Pehaps you could explain in what ways the McCanns by calling it an abduction and publicising it as such, as well as criticising the investigation actually hampered police work into the investigation. I'd really be interested to know. Are the PJ so easily swayed and so easily hurt by critical comments that they collectively rolled into a ball and failed to do their jobs properly??
Title: Re: Supreme Court rules against the McCanns in damages case.
Post by: ShiningInLuz on February 24, 2017, 03:36:31 PM
Pehaps you could explain in what ways the McCanns by calling it an abduction and publicising it as such, as well as criticising the investigation actually hampered police work into the investigation. I'd really be interested to know. Are the PJ so easily swayed and so easily hurt by critical comments that they collectively rolled into a ball and failed to do their jobs properly??
The PJ do not normally attempt to do their work in such a media scrum. It meant less resources were available to devote to working out what happened.
If Duarte really has said 'frivolous comments' in the complaint it is another significant mistake. I would have thought she was smart enough to use legalease rather than this phrase.
Title: Re: Supreme Court rules against the McCanns in damages case.
Post by: Mr Gray on February 24, 2017, 03:54:34 PM
The PJ do not normally attempt to do their work in such a media scrum. It meant less resources were available to devote to working out what happened.
If Duarte really has said 'frivolous comments' in the complaint it is another significant mistake. I would have thought she was smart enough to use legalease rather than this phrase.
every high profile case takes place in a media scrum....the pj just were not up to the job. No excuse for the poor collection of forensics and teh inability to understand the results of what forensic tests were undertaken.
as for frivolous....dont believe everything you read in teh papers
Title: Re: Supreme Court rules against the McCanns in damages case.
Post by: parapono on February 24, 2017, 04:47:53 PM
I just noticed that a new version of the translation of the Supreme Court ruling by Anne Guedes is now available on Pamalam's site. I wont post a link. I hope John will make it available here. The ruling is now published with notes and links that help to understand it and allow direct consultation of Portuguese Law in English. Mighty helpful imo.
Title: Re: Supreme Court rules against the McCanns in damages case.
Post by: Brietta on February 24, 2017, 04:52:54 PM
Correct,whilst the MET engage on their magical mystery tour spending millions there is nothing to indicate that the PJ are involved,they have let the met have a long rope and its tightening,the PJ have played a blinder.
You imagine the PJ have 'played a blinder' ... please explain exactly what you mean by that?
Title: Re: Supreme Court rules against the McCanns in damages case.
Post by: ShiningInLuz on February 24, 2017, 06:23:08 PM
every high profile case takes place in a media scrum....the pj just were not up to the job. No excuse for the poor collection of forensics and teh inability to understand the results of what forensic tests were undertaken.
as for frivolous....dont believe everything you read in teh papers
The idea that every high profile case in Portugal takes place in a media scrum of the type that was initiated and fuelled by Team McCann is a non-starter.
"No media. No media." So what did Team McCann do? Tried quite hard to get it into the media. Source - Kate's book.
Perhaps you know of another Portuguese case where the Pontiff was met and an appearance was made on Oprah?
Title: Re: Supreme Court rules against the McCanns in damages case.
Post by: barrier on February 24, 2017, 06:26:32 PM
You imagine the PJ have 'played a blinder' ... please explain exactly what you mean by that?
The investigation is in all likelihood soon to be brought to an end,cost of multi millions to the uk tax payer for what? the cost to the PJ ? very little I'd venture with the same result,the case remains undetermined.They even let SY do some landscaping of the Portuguese countryside in the hot sun in full view of the worlds media,yep the PJ have let the MET have their fun.
Title: Re: Supreme Court rules against the McCanns in damages case.
Post by: Alfie on February 24, 2017, 06:27:57 PM
every high profile case takes place in a media scrum....the pj just were not up to the job. No excuse for the poor collection of forensics and teh inability to understand the results of what forensic tests were undertaken.
as for frivolous....dont believe everything you read in teh papers
Exactly right. I don't see how the media's involvement (or the Pope's for that matter) could possibly have had a negative effect on the PJ's ability to perform their role. They should have been able to get on with the job without worrying about what the media was reporting.
Title: Re: Supreme Court rules against the McCanns in damages case.
Post by: Alfie on February 24, 2017, 06:29:23 PM
The investigation is in all likelihood soon to be brought to an end,cost of multi millions to the uk tax payer for what? the cost to the PJ ? very little I'd venture with the same result,the case remains undetermined.They even let SY do some landscaping of the Portuguese countryside in the hot sun in full view of the worlds media,yep the PJ have let the MET have their fun.
Do you mean the PJ have invested very little time, energy and manpower on this re-investigation? Well that figures!
Title: Re: Supreme Court rules against the McCanns in damages case.
Post by: ShiningInLuz on February 24, 2017, 06:35:24 PM
The investigation is in all likelihood soon to be brought to an end,cost of multi millions to the uk tax payer for what? the cost to the PJ ? very little I'd venture with the same result,the case remains undetermined.
Just a thought. Someone in the media was quoted as saying the cost of OG was equivalent to the budget of the PJ for a year. I did not dig into the truth of this, so please don't quote me.
I do know that the GNR and PJ deployed what are considered to be vast resources on a single case. Resources that would not have been deployed for a Portuguese child, whether missing in Portugal or missing in England.
Title: Re: Supreme Court rules against the McCanns in damages case.
Post by: jassi on February 24, 2017, 06:35:56 PM
They had a handful made available to assist and facilitate OG. They have another team working in isolation who have no contact with OG No one seems to know just what they are doing.
Title: Re: Supreme Court rules against the McCanns in damages case.
Post by: Alfie on February 24, 2017, 06:44:06 PM
They had a handful made available to assist and facilitate OG. They have another team working in isolation who have no contact with OG No one seems to know just what they are doing.
Apart from Barrier who knows they are playing a blinder, ob.
Title: Re: Supreme Court rules against the McCanns in damages case.
Post by: ShiningInLuz on February 24, 2017, 06:50:03 PM
Exactly right. I don't see how the media's involvement (or the Pope's for that matter) could possibly have had a negative effect on the PJ's ability to perform their role. They should have been able to get on with the job without worrying about what the media was reporting.
Just like the PJ and GNR should have been able to get on with their job in the June 2014 Luz dig without worrying about the media?
OK - no need to cordon the 3 dig areas off. No need to issue warnings about media interference. No need to man umpty positions in Luz 24x10 for that farrago. They should have stepped back and let the media get on with it. Are you of the opinion that was appropriate for 4 May 2007?
I must look up the Portuguese word for tripe. I wonder if the alleged butcher in Portelas sells tripe. I say alleged because we have been told it is the best butcher in the region and I can lay my hands on all sorts of rare meat. Whilst A N Other reckons there is no butcher in Portelas and I am going to have to visit Odiáxere for my delicacies.
Title: Re: Supreme Court rules against the McCanns in damages case.
Post by: Robittybob1 on February 24, 2017, 06:55:52 PM
Just like the PJ and GNR should have been able to get on with their job in the June 2014 Luz dig without worrying about the media?
OK - no need to cordon the 3 dig areas off. No need to issue warnings about media interference. No need to man umpty positions in Luz 24x10 for that farrago. They should have stepped back and let the media get on with it. Are you of the opinion that was appropriate for 4 May 2007?
I must look up the Portuguese word for tripe. I wonder if the alleged butcher in Portelas sells tripe. I say alleged because we have been told it is the best butcher in the region and I can lay my hands on all sorts of rare meat. Whilst A N Other reckons there is no butcher in Portelas and I am going to have to visit Odiáxere for my delicacies.
What are your teeth like? Tripe is like eating rubber.
Title: Re: Supreme Court rules against the McCanns in damages case.
Post by: Montclair on February 24, 2017, 07:53:47 PM
every high profile case takes place in a media scrum....the pj just were not up to the job. No excuse for the poor collection of forensics and teh inability to understand the results of what forensic tests were undertaken.
as for frivolous....dont believe everything you read in teh papers
Isabel Duarte did use the word "leviano" which can be translated as frivolous, hasty, irresponsible, etc.
Title: Re: Supreme Court rules against the McCanns in damages case.
Post by: Mr Gray on February 24, 2017, 07:59:31 PM
Isabel Duarte did use the word "leviano" which can be translated as frivolous, hasty, irresponsible, etc.
so she may well have meant hasty....thanks very much what it does show is what an inexact science translation is.....plenty of room for error in the twice translated non verbatim statements
Title: Re: Supreme Court rules against the McCanns in damages case.
Post by: jassi on February 24, 2017, 08:02:52 PM
so she may well have meant hasty....thanks very much what it does show is what an inexact science translation is.....plenty of room for error in the twice translated non verbatim statements
Or irresponsible - don't forget that option 8(>((
Title: Re: Supreme Court rules against the McCanns in damages case.
Post by: Mr Gray on February 24, 2017, 08:03:14 PM
Just like the PJ and GNR should have been able to get on with their job in the June 2014 Luz dig without worrying about the media?
OK - no need to cordon the 3 dig areas off. No need to issue warnings about media interference. No need to man umpty positions in Luz 24x10 for that farrago. They should have stepped back and let the media get on with it. Are you of the opinion that was appropriate for 4 May 2007?
I must look up the Portuguese word for tripe. I wonder if the alleged butcher in Portelas sells tripe. I say alleged because we have been told it is the best butcher in the region and I can lay my hands on all sorts of rare meat. Whilst A N Other reckons there is no butcher in Portelas and I am going to have to visit Odiáxere for my delicacies.
You seem to have a problem with the media....its absolutely natural for the media to want to report on something so newsworthy as maddies disappearance
Title: Re: Supreme Court rules against the McCanns in damages case.
Post by: Mr Gray on February 24, 2017, 08:04:38 PM
You seem to have a problem with the media....its absolutely natural for the media to want to report on something so newsworthy as maddies disappearance
It is normal practice when a child goes missing to seek publicity and the sooner the better.
Title: Re: Supreme Court rules against the McCanns in damages case.
Post by: Mr Gray on February 24, 2017, 08:13:03 PM
There is a section of dealing with the media. "You need to encourage their cooperation and avoid antagonizing them by being dismissive. If managed properly, the media can be extremely helpful. If managed poorly they can be very damaging. If you can find friends, family members or employees who have contacts within media organizations, you may be able to use them to suppress coverage of an incident. However, you still need to have a contingency plan in place for handling the media. Update it regularly as an incident develops. Preparation • Nominate which individuals will form the crisis management team in the event of an incident. • Select and train somebody to act as a spokesperson. Have a second person as backup in case the spokesperson is not available at the time of the incident. • Companies with operations outside their home country should have a trained spokesperson at head office and in each country. • Make sure there is a dedicated phone line for handling media calls during an incident. It should have recording equipment attached. • Make sure you have the equipment available to monitor radio, television, newspaper and internet reports. • Put together a contact list of senior people within the local press, radio and TV stations. During an incident If members of the public have witnessed the incident, you won’t have much time before the media makes contact. You will need to action a media management plan straight away. • Brief your spokesperson about the incident. • Give the spokesperson’s name and contact details to the rest of the company and the victim’s family. Brief them not to speak to the media but to refer any inquiries to this spokesperson. • Have a defensive media statement ready to use. • Identify questions that the media might ask and prepare a questions and answers document. • Review and update your defensive media statement, and questions and answers documents regularly as the incident develops. • Ensure that any statements and questions and answers documents are sent to the nominated spokesperson in other relevant countries. It is important that the same message is given out throughout the organization. • Monitor newspapers, magazines, radio, television and internet sites for any coverage of the incident. The crisis management team will have to decide whether to correct any inaccurate or speculative reporting, or to ignore it. • Make sure there is ongoing communication between the spokesperson and the crisis management team. Spokespersons abroad must keep the main spokesperson briefed on any developments where they are. • The spokesperson must work closely with the crisis management team and mutually agree on any statements or questions and answers documents. Defensive media statements • Information given to journalists must be factually correct. Avoid disclosing anything sensitive that could endanger the life of the hostage, be detrimental to the morale of their family or company members, or could hinder negotiations with the kidnappers. News of a kidnap can become public knowledge fast. 16 Crisis management corporate guidelines Before giving any information to a journalist you must • Establish their credentials. • Ask what information they already have. • Clarify the sources of that information. If the journalist has background knowledge you should • Admit that there has been a kidnap. • Relate publicly known facts concerning the abduction. • State that it would be dangerous to make any further comment as someone’s life is in danger. • Seek understanding and sympathy. • Request responsible reporting. Stress that this is in the best interest of the victim and their family during a highly emotional and stressful time. • Refuse to speculate. No details should be provided about • The kidnappers’ demands. • Your negotiating strategy. • Contact with law enforcement agencies. • The victim, other than to confirm his/her identity. • Any information about the victim’s family. • The assets of the company or the victim’s family. This must be played down. If the journalist is investigating a rumor • Express surprise at the call. • State that you are not aware of the rumor and ask what information they have. • Thank them for the call and say that you will look into it. • Ask for contact details so you can call back once you have investigated the situation. Note: If there is a large volume of calls, the crisis management team must decide whether to continue to handle them individually or issue a verbal or written statement. Using the media to advantage During a kidnap there are times when you can use the media to send a message to the kidnappers, or to let the hostage know that he/she has not been forgotten. This may be necessary during a lengthy kidnap in order to break a period of silence, or pressure the kidnappers to prove that the victim is alive and well. To achieve this you can: • broadcast veiled messages and music over radio stations (hostage ‘morale boosters’). • ask a friendly journalist or broadcaster to issue a general news item on the kidnapping that does not directly implicate the victim’s family or your company. • arrange an emotional interview with a close family member of the victim. • broadcast or publish an article about the emotional stress the family is suffering, without involving them directly".
Title: Re: Supreme Court rules against the McCanns in damages case.
Post by: G-Unit on February 25, 2017, 08:24:15 AM
It could be if they thought the kidnapper came from country B. Initially they seemed to have someone in mind.
I have seen nothing to suggest they thought the perpetrator came from country B or that they had anyone in mind.
11pm 3rd May;
Mr McCann was absolutely distraught telling the person receiving the call that he feared 'she (Madeleine McCann) had been taken by paedophiles'. http://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/PJ/GRAHAM-MCKENZIE.htm
11.30pm
He mentioned the possibility that that she could have been taken by a paedophile http://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/PJ/PATRICIA_CAMERON.htm
No mention of British paedophiles, it seems.
Title: Re: Supreme Court rules against the McCanns in damages case.
Post by: faithlilly on February 25, 2017, 11:02:04 AM
I have seen nothing to suggest they thought the perpetrator came from country B or that they had anyone in mind.
11pm 3rd May;
Mr McCann was absolutely distraught telling the person receiving the call that he feared 'she (Madeleine McCann) had been taken by paedophiles'. http://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/PJ/GRAHAM-MCKENZIE.htm
11.30pm
He mentioned the possibility that that she could have been taken by a paedophile http://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/PJ/PATRICIA_CAMERON.htm
No mention of British paedophiles, it seems.
This from Graham McKenzie's statement is odd.
'He said something along the lines of there being Paedophile gangs in Portugal and that they had abducted Madeleine. I was so shocked by this, having originally thought that she had just wandered off.'
How would Gerry possibly know that there were paedophile gangs in Portugal ?
Title: Re: Supreme Court rules against the McCanns in damages case.
Post by: Brietta on February 25, 2017, 11:40:38 AM
It's not normal practice when a child goes missing in country A to seek to publicise the disaappearance in country B.
Your post makes no sense at all and imo is mere nit picking. Madeleine's disappearance was publicised where it all began, in Portugal. Where it is worth bearing in mind that in missing child cases the penal code can be relaxed to allow publicity on application to a magistrate. I believe Amaral made that request in the first instance which allowed the PJ to distribute Madeleine's photograph.
Your post makes no sense at all and imo is mere nit picking. Madeleine's disappearance was publicised where it all began, in Portugal. Where it is worth bearing in mind that in missing child cases the penal code can be relaxed to allow publicity on application to a magistrate. I believe Amaral made that request in the first instance which allowed the PJ to distribute Madeleine's photograph.
The media contacted were Sky News and the BBC. Was anyone asked to contact the Portuguese media on their behalf?
What in the country she was most likely to be? Surely not !
I believe that the Portuguese press was also excluded from interviews and photo shoots later on.
Rather Trumpesque ! Don't like the message, ban the messenger. Of course if worldwide publicity is what you want for your daughter's plight banning anyone who facilitates that does seem a tad odd.
Title: Re: Supreme Court rules against the McCanns in damages case.
Post by: G-Unit on February 25, 2017, 12:31:20 PM
'He said something along the lines of there being Paedophile gangs in Portugal and that they had abducted Madeleine. I was so shocked by this, having originally thought that she had just wandered off.'
How would Gerry possibly know that there were paedophile gangs in Portugal ?
A very good question, right up there with another interesting question; were there paedophile gangs in Portugal?
Title: Re: Supreme Court rules against the McCanns in damages case.
Post by: jassi on February 25, 2017, 12:35:47 PM
I thought paedophiles tended to be loners by their very nature, not gregarious club members.
Not sure on that when you read of so so and downloading images some one put them up and its not by accident they are found is it? I don't genuinely know and I'd be surprised if any one on here knows.
Title: Re: Supreme Court rules against the McCanns in damages case.
Post by: Alfie on February 25, 2017, 01:57:13 PM
Not sure on that when you read of so so and downloading images some one put them up and its not by accident they are found is it? I don't genuinely know and I'd be surprised if any one on here knows.
We are drifting way off-topic, so I'll keep this brief.
SIS (security service) year 2000 report. 4 main centres of paedophilia in Portugal. 3 international rings operating from Portugal.
Casa Pia - news broke Sep 2002. High profile trial underway when the McCanns visited Portugal.
Aug 2005 - about 209 paedophiles in prison in Portugal.
Oct 2007 - 80 people arrested across Portugal as part of Operation Predator. This may or may not be considered a 'gang'. They seemed to be accessing photos via a website run by citizens in the US, and the US end was also called Operation Predator.
Portugal only quite recently introduced a paedophile register. It was not even on the statute books in 2007.
One of the Portuguese dailies has a detailed section re paedophilia. It publishes about 100 articles per year. Only a small percentage of these relate to arrests/trials, and such reports are not limited to Portugal. I'd had as much as I could stomach when I'd gone 2 years back, so no doubt I am missing a lot.
Cites are on ShiningInLuz, should anyone be interested.
This does not resolve the issue of Gerry's phone call.
Title: Re: Supreme Court rules against the McCanns in damages case.
Post by: Robittybob1 on February 25, 2017, 05:58:38 PM
So when was that call made? Could it have been made even before they were told not to talk to the media?
the question I would ask is - is there any possible nefarious reason for the McCanns wanting the UK media involved but not the Portuguese media? If not then, apart from acting as a further criticism to heap upon the parents shoulders (of the "stupid idiots should have thought of that, why didn't they?!" variety) I can see little relevance to the question.
Title: Re: Supreme Court rules against the McCanns in damages case.
Post by: Mr Gray on February 25, 2017, 07:33:27 PM
I have read they are just trying to drag things out until the 10th anniversary though I can't imagine why.
As if Jassi. 8**8:/:
Are you trying to imply they are looking to make money to pay their legal bills and others ?
Surely not. 8)--))
Title: Re: Supreme Court rules against the McCanns in damages case.
Post by: slartibartfast on February 25, 2017, 07:50:35 PM
Quote
In the Portuguese jurisdiction, there are ordinary and extraordinary appeals, the difference being that the former are filed before the decision becomes res judicata and the latter after that.
Ordinary appeals are typically entry level-based. In general, claims brought before the court of first instance (District Court) may only be appealed to the Court of Appeal if their value is higher than €5,000 and if the decision is unfavourable to the appellant in more than half of said amount. As for the decisions of the Court of Appeal, an appeal to the Supreme Court of Justice is only admissible if the value of the claim exceeds €30,000 and if the decision is unfavourable in more than €15,000.
There are two types of extraordinary appeals, the revision appeal and the appeal for the standardisation of jurisprudence. The revision appeal may be filed in exceptional cases in which it can be shown that the first decision was, for instance, based on forged evidence. The appeal for the standardisation of jurisprudence is employed in order to attain a homogenous interpretation and application of Portuguese law.
Title: Re: Supreme Court rules against the McCanns in damages case.
Post by: carlymichelle on February 25, 2017, 08:23:34 PM
I have read they are just trying to drag things out until the 10th anniversary though I can't imagine why.
Where did you read that?
Title: Re: Supreme Court rules against the McCanns in damages case.
Post by: Mr Gray on February 26, 2017, 01:30:47 PM
what exactly are the SC saying as regards the archiving report..
they use the word....comprovacao...
comprovação - Wiktionary
Portuguese[edit]. Noun[edit]. comprovação f proof, substantiation · evidence · verification. Retrieved from ...
rather than..... provacao
comprovacao can mean evidence rather than proof...
Title: Re: Supreme Court rules against the McCanns in damages case.
Post by: Brietta on February 26, 2017, 02:06:40 PM
The language used in the archiving report should neither be open to speculation or interpretation. It is a legal document which should be concise in its ultimate meaning. Whether or not one agrees or disagrees with it the content should be unambiguous.
I daresay in the original Portuguese the meaning of phrases and words is eminently clear to a Portuguese speaker.
The problem we have is that we are reliant on having documentation translated and very often interpreted for us which makes it sensible to await for unbiased outcomes to it all.
It will be interesting to see how the courts will deal with this one.
Title: Re: Supreme Court rules against the McCanns in damages case.
Post by: Alice Purjorick on February 26, 2017, 03:36:51 PM
The language used in the archiving report should neither be open to speculation or interpretation. It is a legal document which should be concise in its ultimate meaning. Whether or not one agrees or disagrees with it the content should be unambiguous.
I daresay in the original Portuguese the meaning of phrases and words is eminently clear to a Portuguese speaker.
The problem we have is that we are reliant on having documentation translated and very often interpreted for us which makes it sensible to await for unbiased outcomes to it all.
It will be interesting to see how the courts will deal with this one.
Oh my God! I need to take a powder and lie down in a darkened room. I thought for a moment I was reading one of my own posts......... 8(>(( 8(0(*
I would add the caveat that even when written in English first off, most English speakers will not understand the implications of what the law is saying. Something akin to most German speakers not fully understanding technical German.
Title: Re: Supreme Court rules against the McCanns in damages case.
Post by: Mr Gray on February 26, 2017, 04:46:18 PM
So if Duarte is claiming evidence of innocence then she is correct
Title: Re: Supreme Court rules against the McCanns in damages case.
Post by: jassi on February 26, 2017, 04:52:39 PM
So if Duarte is claiming evidence of innocence then she is correct
Page 70
And let not be said, too, that the appellants were cleared by the order of filing the criminal proceedings. http://miscarriageofjustice.co/index.php?topic=7937.15
Title: Re: Supreme Court rules against the McCanns in damages case.
Post by: Mr Gray on February 26, 2017, 06:40:36 PM
And let not be said, too, that the appellants were cleared by the order of filing the criminal proceedings. http://miscarriageofjustice.co/index.php?topic=7937.15
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.
the fact that the arguido status was removed due to lack of evidence IS evidence of innocence but of course not proof
Title: Re: Supreme Court rules against the McCanns in damages case.
Post by: Alfie on February 26, 2017, 06:57:14 PM
The McCanns were not supposed to reference the fact that the case against them was shelved due to a lack of evidence, and that this obviously meant that in the eyes of the law at least they were innocent, silly idiots! Fancy making such a claim. Of course they're not allowed to consider themselves cleared or innocent, even though there is no case against them, no charges, no conviction. The arrogance of that couple!
Title: Re: Supreme Court rules against the McCanns in damages case.
Post by: jassi on February 26, 2017, 07:04:28 PM
The McCanns were not supposed to reference the fact that the case against them was shelved due to a lack of evidence, and that this obviously meant that in the eyes of the law at least they were innocent, silly idiots! Fancy making such a claim. Of course they're not allowed to consider themselves cleared or innocent, even though there is no case against them, no charges, no conviction. The arrogance of that couple!
Apparently that is what the judges have said. Who are we to argue ?
Title: Re: Supreme Court rules against the McCanns in damages case.
Post by: G-Unit on February 26, 2017, 07:09:37 PM
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.
the fact that the arguido status was removed due to lack of evidence IS evidence of innocence but of course not proof
If police have a suspect, can't find enough evidence to charge them and shelve the case that says nothing about the suspect's guilt or innocence. Nothing! All it says is that the police were unable to find enough evidence to solve the case.
Title: Re: Supreme Court rules against the McCanns in damages case.
Post by: Robittybob1 on February 26, 2017, 07:11:59 PM
If police have a suspect, can't find enough evidence to charge them and shelve the case that says nothing about the suspect's guilt or innocence. Nothing! All it says is that the police were unable to find enough evidence to solve the case.
But they don't go and write a book about it convicting them without a trial.
Title: Re: Supreme Court rules against the McCanns in damages case.
Post by: jassi on February 26, 2017, 07:13:13 PM
If police have a suspect, can't find enough evidence to charge them and shelve the case that says nothing about the suspect's guilt or innocence. Nothing! All it says is that the police were unable to find enough evidence to solve the case.
So what is the legal status of that person? Innocent or guilty of the alleged crime?
Title: Re: Supreme Court rules against the McCanns in damages case.
Post by: jassi on February 26, 2017, 07:21:58 PM
Quite right. No doubt if you are ever up in front of one of them you'll say the same thing.
Of course. Never been a judge who made a bad call, that's why miscarriages of justice never, ever happen. It's all an illusion created by the forum owner to give us something to chatter about in our spare time.
Title: Re: Supreme Court rules against the McCanns in damages case.
Post by: John on February 26, 2017, 07:34:33 PM
Of course. Never been a judge who made a bad call, that's why miscarriages of justice never, ever happen. It's all an illusion created by the forum owner to give us something to chatter about in our spare time.
Those within the justice system have their own agenda. Try googling crooked lawyers and see what comes up.
Title: Re: Supreme Court rules against the McCanns in damages case.
Post by: Mr Gray on March 01, 2017, 10:06:07 AM
So ? The post should be read as a whole Try reading the other papers linked. Reference is made to deterrence.
It isn't Reference is made to making the public feel more comfortable Read it again
Title: Re: Supreme Court rules against the McCanns in damages case.
Post by: G-Unit on March 04, 2017, 06:14:53 PM
Robittybob1
If you had read my post properly in the first place the information was there all along.
Reply #24 on: February 24, 2017, 07:59:46 AM »
My assessment of the contents;
Pages 1-39/40 Taken from the first judgement. Pages 40, 2.2-44 Duartes arguments. Pages 45, 2.3-48 Guerra & Paz response. Page 48 onwards; the judges findings.
Title: Re: Supreme Court rules against the McCanns in damages case.
Post by: misty on March 04, 2017, 07:52:29 PM
If the McCanns had been prominent Portuguese citizens, I wonder if the SC would have reached the same decision?
The SC concluded that Amaral wrote the book with no intent to libel the parents, merely to defend his own reputation & give his own account of the investigation. If his intention was not to defame, why does every chapter, bar one, contain innuendo or implication of the McCanns' guilt?
Title: Re: Supreme Court rules against the McCanns in damages case.
Post by: G-Unit on March 04, 2017, 08:07:15 PM
If the McCanns had been prominent Portuguese citizens, I wonder if the SC would have reached the same decision?
The SC concluded that Amaral wrote the book with no intent to libel the parents, merely to defend his own reputation & give his own account of the investigation. If his intention was not to defame, why does every chapter, bar one, contain innuendo or implication of the McCanns' guilt?
Do you have any evidence to suggest that the Portuguese Courts favour their prominent citizens or are you just slinging mud by implication?
The book described the investigation and the investigation suspected the McCanns. What would you expect him to write?
Title: Re: Supreme Court rules against the McCanns in damages case.
Post by: misty on March 04, 2017, 08:14:39 PM
Do you have any evidence to suggest that the Portuguese Courts favour their prominent citizens or are you just slinging mud by implication?
The book described the investigation and the investigation suspected the McCanns. What would you expect him to write?
The case Fernandes & Fernandes v Portugal, which went to the ECHR, is a prime example of the SC having favoured the reputation of a leading judge over the freedom of expression of a journalistic source.
The investigation also suspected RM. He warranted 2 chapters.
Title: Re: Supreme Court rules against the McCanns in damages case.
Post by: stephen25000 on March 07, 2017, 07:52:35 AM
I would second that too but add that FairPlay and justice is exactly what supporters believe in too but feel there hasn't been much of that in respect to the McCanns
The McCann's have their own way for several years, and they lost the court action.
' The pal said: “People need to remember the family’s lawyers are kept fully informed of all social media and broadcast remarks which are malicious and libellous.
“These minor celebrities think they can say what they want without a shred of evidence and rehash all the old rumours.” '
So from this, is it inferred the Mccann's are celebrities ???
Title: Re: Supreme Court rules against the McCanns in damages case.
Post by: Mr Gray on March 07, 2017, 07:57:19 AM
' The pal said: “People need to remember the family’s lawyers are kept fully informed of all social media and broadcast remarks which are malicious and libellous.
“These minor celebrities think they can say what they want without a shred of evidence and rehash all the old rumours.” '
So from this, is it inferred the Mccann's are celebrities ???
it is not implied Is that what you meant
Title: Re: Supreme Court rules against the McCanns in damages case.
Post by: stephen25000 on March 07, 2017, 08:01:50 AM
All they did Alfie, is give Amaral more publicity.
Otherwise, he would have disappeared into retirement and nobody would have heard of him again.
Ain't hindsight a wonderful thing though? Personally I understand why they did what they did and despite how it turned out for them I'd probably do exactly the same if I ever found myself in their shoes. If I felt I had been publicly wronged and libelled and that it serioudly hurt my family, yes I would do the same. If that makes me smug and arrogant in the eyes of my detractors, well I couldn't care less.
Title: Re: Supreme Court rules against the McCanns in damages case.
Post by: John on March 08, 2017, 10:20:25 AM