UK Justice Forum 🇬🇧
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: John on March 19, 2017, 04:25:10 PM
-
Application to have Judgement Invalidated (Arguição de Nulidade do Acórdão)
Below is a copy of the McCann's request for annulment of the Supreme Court´s decision, filed by the couple´s lawyer on the 16th of February, 2017. We understand that the filing of this appeal has a suspensive effect on the Supreme Court´s ruling.
The request alleges that the Supreme Court´s decision "lacks a foundation (...) in stating that one cannot invoke the principle of presumption of innocence in order to restrict the right to freedom of expression, because it is based on the erroneous presumption that the archiving of the criminal investigation 'was determined because it was not possible for the Public Ministry to obtain enough indications of the practice of crimes by the appellants'".
In case you are struggling with the legalese (we do), here is what we understand to be the reasoning behind the request:
1. The McCanns have invoked the principle of presumption of innocence to justify the restrictions they want imposed on Dr. Amaral's freedom of expression;
2. The Supreme Court stated, in its ruling, that the above is no argument because the McCanns were not considered innocent by the investigation and the case was archived because not enough evidence was found to charge them.
3. The McCanns, because they believe the above argument is false, request for the Supreme Court's decision to be nullified/invalidated.
Translation and Notes courtesy Anne Guedes.
Page 01
February 16, 2017
SUPREME COURT OF JUSTICE
Section 1
Case No. 1.454 / 09.5TVLSB.L1.S1
Your Excellency Doctor Judge Counselor Rapporteur,
KATE MARIE HEALY MCCANN and GERALD PATRICK MCCANN, appellants identified in the case minutes, having been notified of the entire content of the STJ 1st Section's ruling, which redounded on the matter of the appeal for review, come, under the terms and for the purposes of the provisions of articles 615-1(b, c) and 4-1 and 666 of the Code of Civil Procedure, to argue for the assembly the
NULLITY OF THE RULING
What they do, on the following grounds:
The factual assumptions - which are supposed to be valid - of the logical argumentation set out in the ruling now object of complaint contradict and constitute a sense of reason opposite to that which is inferred from the factual ground of the decision,
Note-1:
Article 615 – Causes of Nullity of the Sentence
1 – The sentence is null when :
b) It does not specify the factual and legal grounds that justify the decision.
c) The grounds are in opposition to the decision or there is some ambiguity or obscurity that turns the decision unintelligible.
4 - The nullities mentioned in points b) to e) of paragraph 1 can only be argued before the court that delivered the sentence if this one does not admit ordinary appeal, and if it does the appeal can be based on any of these nullities.
Article 666 - Vices and Reform of the Ruling
1 - The provisions of articles 613 to 617 are applicable to the 2nd instance, but the ruling is still null and void when it is drawn against the unsuccessful party or without the necessary salary.
2 - The rectification or amendment of the judgment, as well as the plea of nullity, shall be decided in a conference.
Page 02
And this in particular as regards the conclusive epitome on the protection of the rights of the appellants to their good name and reputation, and their intimate relationship with the presumption of innocence or, if we wish to be more rigorous, the status of innocence that they enjoy.
Now,
It is established in the minutes, under point 15 of the factual matter, that, in particular :
(...)
“It appears that the non involvement of the arguidos, the parents of Madeleine McCann, stems from the objective circumstances of them not being inside the apartment when Madeleine disappeared, from the normal behaviour that they displayed until said disappearance and afterwards, as can be amply concluded from witness statements, from the telephone communications analysis and also from the forensics' conclusions, namely the reports from the (Birmingham) Forensic Science Service (FSS) and from the National Institute for Legal Medicine.
To this should be added that in fact none of the clues that led to their constitution as “arguidos" was later confirmed or consolidated.
Page 03
Let's judge it : the information concerning a previous alert of the media before the police was not confirmed, the residues that were marked by the dogs were not corroborated in laboratory, and the initial indications from the above transcribed email (1) better examined afterwards, that ended up appearing to be inconclusive.
(...)
Tests and analyses were performed in two of the most prestigious and credentialed institutions - the National Institute for Legal Medicine and the British Forensic Science Service -, their final results having neither positively evaluated the collected residues nor corroborated the dogs' alerts.
(...) (2)
it was not possible to obtain any evidence that would allow for a average man, enlightened by criteria of logics, of norms and of the general rules of experience,
Note-2: The email on the preliminary DNA analysis by the FSS of the samples collected in the car hired by the Mcs.
Note-3 : (...) is substituted to "In spite of all this" in the original document (the filing order)
Page 04
to formulate any lucid, sensate, serious and honest conclusion about the circumstances under which the child was removed from the apartment (whether dead or alive, whether killed in a neglectful homicide or an intended homicide, whether the victim of a targeted or opportunistic abduction), nor even to produce a consistent prognosis about her destiny and inclusively – and that's the most dramatic - to establish whether she is still alive or, as it seems the more likely, she is dead.
(...)
Therefore, everything having been examined, analysed and duly pondered, considering what is left exposed, we determine
(...)
the archiving of the autos concerning the (by lawyer) assisted witnesses Gerald Patrick McCann and Kate Marie Healy, due to the lack of clues of their practising any crime” (cf. Also, alinea AQ) of the established facts in the normalizing dispatch of the process).
The documentary proof that supported the determination of this fact as proved, even in the condensation phase of the proceedings, is, as a result, the order to file the aforementioned criminal investigation, together with the minutes on paper or in digital form.
Page 05
In the operative part of this order, one can read, immediately after the sentence "because there is no evidence that they have committed any crime", the express mention of article 277-1 of the CPP, through the concrete expression "in accordance with the provisions of Article 277-1 of the CPP".
In the light of this, it seems to the appellants that this STJ's Section can not lightly come to say in the ruling now matter of complaint, necessarily without falling (3) into a conspicuous contradiction of grounds, that the archival in question "was determined since it had not been possible for the Public Ministry to obtain sufficient evidence of the commission of crimes by the appellants (cf. Quoted article 277-2)".
Just as (this STJ's Section) could not assert that it is not acceptable to assimilate the aforementioned filing order to a verified proof of innocence, precisely because the order to which that court refers,
Note-4
Article 277 - Archiving of the investigation
1 - The Public Ministry shall, by dispatch, close the investigation, as soon as it has gathered sufficient evidence that the crime was not confirmed, that the arguido did not practice it in any way or that the procedure is legally inadmissible
Note-5
this is a literal translation, but the appropriate syntax for what is meant is "sem necessariamente cair...", i.e without falling necessarily...
Note-6
Article 277 - Archiving of the investigation
2. The investigation shall also be closed if it had not been possible for the Public Ministry to obtain sufficient evidence confirming the crime or who were the authors.
Page 06
as a presupposition of the conclusion it reached, does not unexist (4) uttered under article 277-2 of the CPP.
As far as the appellants are aware of, the archiving at stake was carried out, in the course of the investigation, because sufficient proof had been gathered that the then arguidos did not commit any facts of a criminal relevance and in any way whatsoever, this conclusion substantiating an archiving for factual reasons,
A point that should have always meant inside the decision taken by this STJ
that, in this investigation, exists the necessary certainty that the persons then arguidos did not participate objectively, subjectively and individually in its (5) practice, whether as perpetrators or only as accomplices.
On the other hand,
Note-7
read “exists”. La Bruyère wrote that "Whatever we conceive well we express clearly, and words flow with ease”. It seems that here things aren’t as well conceived as they should to be understandable. Double negations are traps even for grammarians. As well read "could not assert that it is not acceptable” as “could not assert that it is unthinkable”
Note-8 this possessive adjective lacks syntaxic representation. One can guess that it refers to the undetermined crime MMC was victim of.
Page 07
Furthermore the appellants find that the conclusion reached in the ruling under complaint is lacking factual ground concerning the fact that the alluded filing decision is liable to be amended by various means, which is done with a view to removing from the minutes the application of the presumption of innocence principle.
However, the archiving decision, which is proven in the minutes, produces important preclusive legal effects, which are protected by the procedural law, having the force of res judicata, as, moreover, is foreseen in the schemes established by articles 279-1, 282-3 and 449-2 of the CPP.
That is to say, therefore, that the filing order uttered according to article 277-1 of the CPP, after the deadline of article 278 of the same legal compendium, is res judicata (6) and is only subject to review according to the terms of articles 279 and 449-2 of the CPP.
That is to say, the invalidation of the grounds invoked by the Public Ministry's office in the filing order, made under the provisions of article 277-1 of the CPP, can only be based on new facts or elements of evidence unknown by the Public Ministry at the investigation’s time and that, therefore,
Note-9
Article 279 - Reopening of the investigation
1. Once the period referred to in the previous article has expired, the investigation may be reopened only if new evidence appears to invalidate the grounds invoked by the Public Ministry in the filing order.
Article 282 - Duration and effects of suspension
3 - If the arguido complies with the injunctions and rules of behaviour, the Public Ministry closes the processes that cannot be reopened.
Article 449 - Reasons and admissibility of the review
2 - For the purpose of the provisions of the preceding paragraph, the dispatch terminating the process shall be equated with the sentence (made res judicata).
Note-10
Article 278 - Hierarchical intervention
1 - Within a period of 20 days from the date on which the opening of the investigation can no longer be requested, the immediate superior of the Public Ministry magistrate may, on his own initiative or at the request of the assistant or of the complainant capable of being constituted assistant, determine that an indictment is made or that the investigations continue, indicating, in this case, the steps to be taken and the deadline for compliance.
2 - The assistant and the complainant able to become an assistant may, if they choose not to request the opening of the instruction, raise the hierarchical intervention, under the previous number, within the period provided for that request.
Note-11
Read “only new pertinent elements will be able to cast doubt upon the grounds invoked by the PM".
Page 08
could not be presented and produced in order to be assessed and pondered in the decision.
However, inside the factual matter established as proved in the minutes, there is no fact capable of constituting ground for the review or reopening of the investigation in question, there is thus no basis for the finding advanced by the court to the effect that the principle of innocence isn’t able to be alluded to in the minutes to restrict the right to freedom of expression, because of the, erroneous, starting assumption that the archiving of the criminal investigation "was determined by the fact that the PM had not been able to obtain sufficient evidence of the commission of crimes by the appellants". (7)
Therefore,
we request that Your Excellencies deign : (8)
a) to hear the present nullity imputation,
b) to remedy the flaws of inconsistency between the factual basis and the conclusions reached in the ruling and the flaws of failure of ground, as stated above,
Note-12
The complexity of the filing order, erroneously known as the “AG Report”, is likely related to the difficult task the Public Ministry was facing. And one has to admit that the dispatch is not written as the judges of the STJ remarkably write their rulings. Mr Murat’s arguido status, twice extended, required to put an end to the criminal investigation (the status of arguidos can’t be removed before the end of that investigation phase).
Furthermore the acquaintances of the MCs rejected the request of the Prosecutor to go back to PDL in order to be part in a reconstitution of the 3rd of May events, though the Prosecutor clearly warned that it was the last chance for boosting the rather stagnant criminal investigation. These are the significant circumstances involving the writing of the filing order. One has to acknowledge an important point however : the Prosecutors foresaw that their constrained decision, as it couldn’t exonerate the MCs, the crime being undetermined, would reflect the “major damage done to the MCs” by the refusal of the group to collaborate with the PJ.
Note-13 Note that the complaint starts addressing to Your Excellency (singular)
Page 09
All with legal consequences.
Attached is a document proving that justice fees were paid. (9)
Notification concerning this complaint was sent to the opposite parties by email on 16.02.2017
Note-14: This document was published on PJGA on March 18, but Gonçalo Amaral legal team is supposed to have been emailed it on February 16. The referred receipt of justice fees isn’t appended.
-
Application to have Judgement Invalidated (Arguição de Nulidade do Acórdão)
Below is a copy of the McCann's request for annulment of the Supreme Court´s decision, filed by the couple´s lawyer on the 16th of February, 2017. We understand that the filing of this appeal has a suspensive effect on the Supreme Court´s ruling.
A translation will be available shortly.
The request alleges that the Supreme Court´s decision "lacks a foundation (...) in stating that one cannot invoke the principle of presumption of innocence in order to restrict the right to freedom of expression, because it is based on the erroneous presumption that the archiving of the criminal investigation 'was determined because it was not possible for the Public Ministry to obtain enough indications of the practice of crimes by the appellants'".
In case you are struggling with the legalese (we do), here is what we understand to be the reasoning behind the request:
1. The McCanns have invoked the principle of presumption of innocence to justify the restrictions they want imposed on Dr. Amaral's freedom of expression;
2. The Supreme Court stated, in its ruling, that the above is no argument because the McCanns were not considered innocent by the investigation and the case was archived because not enough evidence was found to charge them.
3. The McCanns, because they believe the above argument is false, request for the Supreme Court's decision to be nullified/invalidated.
Oh Interesting. They were under suspicion and should remain so, as they were the last people to have seen her alive.(?) It may be an idea to have them charged with neglect or something like that to bring a court case and get it all out in the open once and for all.
-
Oh Interesting. They were under suspicion and should remain so, as they were the last people to have seen her alive.(?) It may be an idea to have them charged with neglect or something like that to bring a court case and get it all out in the open once and for all.
What on earth are you on about?
-
What on earth are you on about?
Give them their day in court, to be jugded guilty or innocent. Best all round. 8)--))
Thanks to Anne for great work!
-
In the operative part of this order, one can read, immediately after the sentence "because there is no evidence that they have committed any crime",
so the archiving report sated taht there was no evidence they had committed any crime but the SC stated there isnt sufficient evidence to chargen them...the SC are factually incorrect....the McCanns may well have a case to have the ruling nullified
-
" the non involvement of the parents, assisted witnesses, in any penally relevant action stems from the objective circumstances of them not being inside the apartment when Madeleine disappeared, from the normal behaviour that they displayed until said disappearance and afterwards, as can be amply concluded from witness statements, from the telephone communications analysis and also from the forensics' conclusions, namely the reports from the (Birmingham) Forensic Science Service (FSS) and from the National Institute for Legal Medicine.
and the phrase "non involvement of the parents" indicates the mcccanns are not thought to be involved
-
Give them their day in court, to be jugded guilty or innocent. Best all round. 8)--))
Thanks to Anne for great work!
there isnt any evidence to take them to court....havent you been following the case
-
Give them their day in court, to be jugded guilty or innocent. Best all round. 8)--))
Thanks to Anne for great work!
Seconded. 8((()*/
-
" the non involvement of the parents, assisted witnesses, in any penally relevant action stems from the objective circumstances of them not being inside the apartment when Madeleine disappeared, from the normal behaviour that they displayed until said disappearance and afterwards, as can be amply concluded from witness statements, from the telephone communications analysis and also from the forensics' conclusions, namely the reports from the (Birmingham) Forensic Science Service (FSS) and from the National Institute for Legal Medicine.
and the phrase "non involvement of the parents" indicates the mcccanns are not thought to be involved
More selective quotations.
However, the bottom line remains, they are the last known people to have seen her alive.
-
" the non involvement of the parents, assisted witnesses, in any penally relevant action stems from the objective circumstances of them not being inside the apartment when Madeleine disappeared, from the normal behaviour that they displayed until said disappearance and afterwards, as can be amply concluded from witness statements, from the telephone communications analysis and also from the forensics' conclusions, namely the reports from the (Birmingham) Forensic Science Service (FSS) and from the National Institute for Legal Medicine.
and the phrase "non involvement of the parents" indicates the mcccanns are not thought to be involved
I pointed this out weeks ago. Perhaps I should be a lawyer. 8(>((
-
Seconded. 8((()*/
do you not understand how the legal system works....taking somone to trial requires evidence...wheres teh evidence against the mccanns...an absolutely stupid post
-
I pointed this out weeks ago. Perhaps I should be a lawyer. 8(>((
its just part of your natural intelligence...severely lacking in some other posters
-
Give them their day in court, to be jugded guilty or innocent. Best all round. 8)--))
Thanks to Anne for great work!
as there is no evidence against them they would be found innocent....so you can stop posting stupid claims now
-
do you not understand how the legal system works....taking somone to trial requires evidence...wheres teh evidence against the mccanns...an absolutely stupid post
With no abduction dave, what would the inevitable outcome be.
P.S. Your repeated mantra comments are so predictable.
-
as there is no evidence against them they would be found innocent....so you can stop posting stupid claims now
You forget, the mistake the Portuguese made, was not arresting them for abandonment.
This has been referred to before.
-
You forget, the mistake the Portuguese made, was not arresting them for abandonment.
This has been referred to before.
read the archiving report where it clearly states there was no case of abandonment........you can quote others but it is the archiving report that counts
-
With no abduction dave, what would the inevitable outcome be.
P.S. Your repeated mantra comments are so predictable.
you want to take the mccanns to court....what would you want to charge them with....duh
-
You forget, the mistake the Portuguese made, was not arresting them for abandonment.
This has been referred to before.
The statute of limitation for abandonment has passed. Too late to accuse them of that crime now.
you want to take the mccanns to court....what would you want to charge them with....duh
Yes what?
-
read the archiving report where it clearly states there was no case of abandonment........you can quote others but it is the archiving report that counts
You can read up on the Portuguese ex-Minister as regards that.
They got away with child abandonment, no doubt about it.
-
The statute of limitation for abandonment has passed. Too late to accuse them of that crime now.
Yes what?
You have a cite for the statute of limitation in Portugal for that ?
-
You have a cite for the statute of limitation in Portugal for that ?
We did look it up and it was 10 years from memory. It certainly is getting close to the 10 years, so if that is the only crime the McCanns committed the PJ had better act quickly.
-
You have a cite for the statute of limitation in Portugal for that ?
its been posted many times ....you obviously dont remember. Its quite a short time....2 years i think
-
We did look it up and it was 10 years from memory. It certainly is getting close to the 10 years, so it that is the only crime the PJ had better act quickly.
its much less than that
-
We did look it up and it was 10 years from memory. It certainly is getting close to the 10 years, so if that is the only crime the McCanns committed the PJ had better act quickly.
So the statute hasn't passed, has it.
-
You can read up on the Portuguese ex-Minister as regards that.
They got away with child abandonment, no doubt about it.
not according to the archiving report....you are quoting a newspaper article ....LOL
-
not according to the archiving report....you are quoting a newspaper article ....LOL
It was from the ex-Minister.
Are you calling him a liar ?
-
its much less than that
Well, just for a change, provide a citation.
-
It was from the ex-Minister.
Are you calling him a liar ?
newspaper articles are not always accurate...he was stating his opinion....
-
not according to the archiving report....you are quoting a newspaper article ....LOL
So did they brush over the abandonment crime so they could rush the archiving report through, so Amaral could release his book?
-
newspaper articles are not always accurate...he was stating his opinion....
He knew the law.
Any Portuguese citizen doing what the McCann's did, would have been charged.
-
He knew the law.
Any Portuguese citizen doing what the McCann's did, would have been charged.
But they would have to charge the other Tapas families as well as they all did the same.
-
But they would have to charge the other Tapas families as well as they all did the same.
I agree.
They should.
-
I agree.
They should.
but no one cares what you think
-
He knew the law.
Any Portuguese citizen doing what the McCann's did, would have been charged.
not accoring to the archiving report
-
not accoring to the archiving report
which is 10 years old crime files change
-
which is 10 years old crime files change
ROFL
-
If that is what they want to do they have to hurry, as 10 years is nearly up.
-
This is interesting;
Page 6
As far as the appellants are aware of, the archiving at stake was carried out, in the course of the investigation, because sufficient proof had been gathered that the then arguidos did not commit any facts of a criminal relevance and in any way whatsoever, this conclusion substantiating an archiving for factual reasons,
The McCanns are saying the investigation gathered 'sufficient proof' that the arguidos didn't commit a crime. I would like to see the evidence that 'proved' their non-involvement in a crime.
-
This is interesting;
Page 6
As far as the appellants are aware of, the archiving at stake was carried out, in the course of the investigation, because sufficient proof had been gathered that the then arguidos did not commit any facts of a criminal relevance and in any way whatsoever, this conclusion substantiating an archiving for factual reasons,
The McCanns are saying the investigation gathered 'sufficient proof' that the arguidos didn't commit a crime. I would like to see the evidence that 'proved' their non-involvement in a crime.
" the non involvement of the parents, assisted witnesses, in any penally relevant action stems from the objective circumstances of them not being inside the apartment when Madeleine disappeared, from the normal behaviour that they displayed until said disappearance and afterwards, as can be amply concluded from witness statements, from the telephone communications analysis and also from the forensics' conclusions, namely the reports from the (Birmingham) Forensic Science Service (FSS) and from the National Institute for Legal Medicine.
-
" the non involvement of the parents, assisted witnesses, in any penally relevant action stems from the objective circumstances of them not being inside the apartment when Madeleine disappeared, from the normal behaviour that they displayed until said disappearance and afterwards, as can be amply concluded from witness statements, from the telephone communications analysis and also from the forensics' conclusions, namely the reports from the (Birmingham) Forensic Science Service (FSS) and from the National Institute for Legal Medicine.
Have you forgotten, the crime, if one occurred of course, remains unsolved.
No other person has been found to be involved.
-
which is 10 years old crime files change
ROFL LOL
-
" the non involvement of the parents, assisted witnesses, in any penally relevant action stems from the objective circumstances of them not being inside the apartment when Madeleine disappeared, from the normal behaviour that they displayed until said disappearance and afterwards, as can be amply concluded from witness statements, from the telephone communications analysis and also from the forensics' conclusions, namely the reports from the (Birmingham) Forensic Science Service (FSS) and from the National Institute for Legal Medicine.
You missed the "It appears..."
-
You missed the "It appears..."
Please put "it appears" in the passage quoted by Davel.
-
Please put "it appears" in the passage quoted by Davel.
Slarti knows better than the prosecutors, though, Alfie ....
-
Please put "it appears" in the passage quoted by Davel.
I'm sure you know where it goes.
It appears that the non involvement of the parents, assisted witnesses, in any penally relevant action stems from the objective circumstances of them not being inside the apartment when Madeleine disappeared, from the normal behaviour that they displayed until said disappearance and afterwards, as can be amply concluded from witness statements, from the telephone communications analysis and also from the forensics' conclusions, namely the reports from the (Birmingham) Forensic Science Service (FSS) and from the National Institute for Legal Medicine.
Or
The non involvement of the arguidos parents of Madeleine in any penally relevant action seems to result from the objective circumstances of them not being inside the apartment when she disappeared, from the normal behaviour that they adopted until said disappearance and afterwards, as can be amply concluded from the witness statements, from the telephone communications analysis and also from the forensics' conclusions, namely the Reports from the FSS and from the National Institute for Legal Medicine.
-
Have you forgotten, the crime, if one occurred of course, remains unsolved.
No other person has been found to,be involved.
Yet you want to take the mccanns to court....LOL
-
I'm sure you know where it goes.
Or
No or about it.
The second version is what the files say.
The first isn't.
-
You missed the "It appears..."
So Slarti's wishful thinking should replace what the prosecutors wrote?
-
You missed the "It appears..."
there is no "it appears"
Concerning the other indicated crimes, they are no more than that and despite our perception that, due to its high degree of probability, the occurrence of a homicide cannot be discarded, such cannot be more than a mere supposition, due to the lack of sustaining elements in the files.
The non involvement of the arguidos parents of Madeleine in any penally relevant action seems to result from the objective circumstances of them not being inside the apartment when she disappeared, from the normal behaviour that they adopted until said disappearance and afterwards, as can be amply concluded from the witness statements, from the telephone communications analysis and also from the forensics' conclusions, namely the Reports from the FSS and from the National Institute for Legal Medicine.
http://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/PJ/LEGAL_SUMMARY.htm
-
Yet you want to take the mccanns to court....LOL
I can't take the McCann's to court dave. That is not my responsibility.
You really do lack logic.
-
I can't take the McCann's to court dave. That is not my responsibility.
You really do lack logic.
try reading your own posts
-
No or about it.
The second version is what the files say.
The first isn't.
Oh dear. &%&£(+
-
there is no "it appears"
Concerning the other indicated crimes, they are no more than that and despite our perception that, due to its high degree of probability, the occurrence of a homicide cannot be discarded, such cannot be more than a mere supposition, due to the lack of sustaining elements in the files.
The non involvement of the arguidos parents of Madeleine in any penally relevant action seems to result from the objective circumstances of them not being inside the apartment when she disappeared, from the normal behaviour that they adopted until said disappearance and afterwards, as can be amply concluded from the witness statements, from the telephone communications analysis and also from the forensics' conclusions, namely the Reports from the FSS and from the National Institute for Legal Medicine.
http://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/PJ/LEGAL_SUMMARY.htm
Is correct, Dave.
-
Concerning the other indicated crimes, they are no more than that and despite our perception that, due to its high degree of probability, the occurrence of a homicide cannot be discarded, such cannot be more than a mere supposition, due to the lack of sustaining elements in the files.
The non involvement of the arguidos parents of Madeleine in any penally relevant action seems to result from the objective circumstances of them not being inside the apartment when she disappeared, from the normal behaviour that they adopted until said disappearance and afterwards, as can be amply concluded from the witness statements, from the telephone communications analysis and also from the forensics' conclusions, namely the Reports from the FSS and from the National Institute for Legal Medicine.
To this can be added that, in reality, none of the indications that led to their constitution as arguidos was later confirmed or consolidated. If not, let us see: the information concerning a previous alert of the media before the polices was not confirmed, the traces that were marked by the dogs were not ratified in laboratory, and the initial indications from the above transcribed email, better clarified at a later date, ended up being revealed as innocuous.
Even if, hypothetically, one could admit that Gerald and Kate McCann might be responsible over the child's death, it would still have to be explained how, where through, when, with what means, with the help of whom and where to they freed themselves of her body within the restricted time frame that would have been available to them to do so. Their daily routine, until the 3rd of May, had been circumscribed to the narrow borders of the 'Ocean Club' resort and to the beach that lies next to it, unknowing the surrounding terrain and, apart from the English friends that were with them on holiday there, they had no known friends or contacts in Portugal.
reading that I can see why the mcanns regard themselvesa cleared#
-
try reading your own posts
Your lack of comprehension is quite remarkable.
-
and this...
But therefore we do not possess any minimally solid and rigorous foundation in order to be able to state, with the safety that is requested, which was or were the exact and precise crime(s) that was or were practised on the person of the minor Madeleine McCann - apart from the supposed but dismissed crime of exposure or abandonment - or to hold anyone responsible over its authorship.
-
Your lack of comprehension is quite remarkable.
ROFL
-
" the non involvement of the parents, assisted witnesses, in any penally relevant action stems from the objective circumstances of them not being inside the apartment when Madeleine disappeared, from the normal behaviour that they displayed until said disappearance and afterwards, as can be amply concluded from witness statements, from the telephone communications analysis and also from the forensics' conclusions, namely the reports from the (Birmingham) Forensic Science Service (FSS) and from the National Institute for Legal Medicine.
That says the parents won't be charged. Then it says why. Are those reasons 'proof of innocence'? Elsewhere the prosecutors say;
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;
So the prosecutors do not believe they have evidence amounting to 'proof of innocence'.
-
and this...
But therefore we do not possess any minimally solid and rigorous foundation in order to be able to state, with the safety that is requested, which was or were the exact and precise crime(s) that was or were practised on the person of the minor Madeleine McCann - apart from the supposed but dismissed crime of exposure or abandonment - or to hold anyone responsible over its authorship.
You really haven't got the message yet, have you
The McCann's remain the last known people to have seen Madeleine alive.
No one else has been found to be involved.
You will be reminded of this, until you get the message.
-
ROFL
Have you sought treatment for rolling on the floor.
You might get injured. 8(0(*
-
That says the parents won't be charged. Then it says why. Are those reasons 'proof of innocence'? Elsewhere the prosecutors say;
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;
So the prosecutors do not believe they have evidence amounting to 'proof of innocence'.
Do you have a link to the original portuguese ...are they talking of evidence of innocence or proof of innocence
-
No or about it.
The second version is what the files say.
The first isn't.
Same Portuguese, slightly different words English.
-
You missed the "It appears..."
a link to where this appears
-
and this...
But therefore we do not possess any minimally solid and rigorous foundation in order to be able to state, with the safety that is requested, which was or were the exact and precise crime(s) that was or were practised on the person of the minor Madeleine McCann - apart from the supposed but dismissed crime of exposure or abandonment - or to hold anyone responsible over its authorship.
Exposure and abandonment...
-
a link to where this appears
SC judgement
-
Exposure and abandonment...
Both dismissed.
By logical extension also anything more serious.
-
Both dismissed.
By logical extension also anything more serious.
The law doesn't work that way.
-
SC judgement
then the SC judgement is wrong....perhaps I should tell Duarte
-
then the SC judgement is wrong....perhaps I should tell Duarte
Ah, so now you are an expert in Portuguese Law. @)(++(* @)(++(*
-
then the SC judgement is wrong....perhaps I should tell Duarte
I'm sure the SC read the Portuguese not online English translations.
-
I'm sure the SC read the Portuguese not online English translations.
thats what I read....LOL they are online....they seem a bit sloppy
-
Both dismissed.
By logical extension also anything more serious.
If this helps.
CRIME UNKNOWN.
-
thats what I read....LOL
...and you still don't understand.
-
That says the parents won't be charged. Then it says why. Are those reasons 'proof of innocence'? Elsewhere the prosecutors say;
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;
So the prosecutors do not believe they have evidence amounting to 'proof of innocence'.
In reference to the reconstitution, which no one has ever been able to explain how it would have proved their innocence.
-
I'm sure you know where it goes.
Or
From the translation in the OP of this thread:
" the non involvement of the parents, assisted witnesses, in any penally relevant action stems from the objective circumstances of them not being inside the apartment when Madeleine disappeared, from the normal behaviour that they displayed until said disappearance and afterwards, as can be amply concluded from witness statements, from the telephone communications analysis and also from the forensics' conclusions, namely the reports from the (Birmingham) Forensic Science Service (FSS) and from the National Institute for Legal Medicine.
Please point out the "it appears" or "it seems", thanks muchly.
-
...and you still don't understand.
i read the original portuguese....http://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/P17/17_VOLUME_XVIIa_Page_4644.jpg
see if you can....there is no...it appears
bottom two lines
-
From the translation in the OP of this thread:
" the non involvement of the parents, assisted witnesses, in any penally relevant action stems from the objective circumstances of them not being inside the apartment when Madeleine disappeared, from the normal behaviour that they displayed until said disappearance and afterwards, as can be amply concluded from witness statements, from the telephone communications analysis and also from the forensics' conclusions, namely the reports from the (Birmingham) Forensic Science Service (FSS) and from the National Institute for Legal Medicine.
Please point out the "it appears" or "it seems", thanks muchly.
Well we seem to have a b........ version with bit from both. You would have to ask Davel.
-
i read the original portuguese....http://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/P17/17_VOLUME_XVIIa_Page_4644.jpg
see if you can....there is no...it appears
bottom two lines
Just keep to the Supreme Court Judgement dave.
The McCann's lost.
That won't change.
So, time to pay up.
-
Well we seem to have a b........ version with bit from both. You would have to ask Davel.
I have supplied a link to the original portuguese statement...there is no...it appears
-
I have supplied a link to the original portuguese statement...there is no...it appears
Now link to the source of your post.
-
Just keep to the Supreme Court Judgement dave.
The McCann's lost.
That won't change.
So, time to pay up.
you are more than abit slow tonight...the SC were quoting the archiving report....and the quoted it incorectly
-
you are more than abit slow tonight...the SC were quoting the archiving report....and the quoted it incorectly
It's the same Portuguese.
-
Well we seem to have a b........ version with bit from both. You would have to ask Davel.
Why? Did he supply the translation in the OP?
-
Now link to the source of your post.
http://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/PJ/LEGAL_SUMMARY.htm
-
http://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/PJ/LEGAL_SUMMARY.htm
Which says...
The non involvement of the arguidos parents of Madeleine in any penally relevant action seems to result from the objective circumstances of them not being inside the apartment when she disappeared, from the normal behaviour that they adopted until said disappearance and afterwards, as can be amply concluded from the witness statements, from the telephone communications analysis and also from the forensics' conclusions, namely the Reports from the FSS and from the National Institute for Legal Medicine.
-
It's the same Portuguese.
so where has your claim of ...it appears ...come from....link
-
so where has your claim of ...it appears ...come from....link
http://www.gerrymccannsblogs.co.uk/Supreme_Court_31_01_2017.htm (http://www.gerrymccannsblogs.co.uk/Supreme_Court_31_01_2017.htm)
-
Do you have a link to the original portuguese ...are they talking of evidence of innocence or proof of innocence
My take on it is roughly;
Evidence was collected 'which proves' that the defendants didn't commit any crimes
Over to you;
http://pjga.blogspot.co.uk/
Scroll down to Page 6.
-
ROFL is so 10 years ago in internet speech only old people think it is funny 8)-)))
1989 Usenet
-
1989 Usenet
off topic. ROFL.
-
My take on it is roughly;
Evidence was collected 'which proves' that the defendants didn't commit any crimes
Over to you;
http://pjga.blogspot.co.uk/
Scroll down to Page 6.
it comes down to the fact taht the portuguese think that a reconstructiion would have proved the mccanns innocence but teh fact there is no evidence against them doesnt
what we do know is taht if the mccanns were tried now on the available evidence they would be found not guilty....that proves their imnnocence beyond reasoanable doubt
-
If people are arrested for the kidnapping of Madeleine in the next few weeks, would the SC stick with their current decision & risk the State inevitably paying out massive compensation via ECHR alongside their own competence being severely criticised from within?
I don't follow the logic at work here. The trial was about freedom of expression. If the opinion expressed was wrong, does that mean it can't be expressed? I don't see the connection.
-
it comes down to the fact taht the portuguese think that a reconstructiion would have proved the mccanns innocence but teh fact there is no evidence against them doesnt
what we do know is taht if the mccanns were tried now on the available evidence they would be found not guilty....that proves their imnnocence beyond reasoanable doubt
At the time of the archiving they didn't have enough evidence to decide what the crime was. let alone to charge anyone. Unless the crime is known it seems ridiculous to suggest that someone has been 'proved innocent'. Innocent of what?
-
At the time of the archiving they didn't have enough evidence to decide what the crime was. let alone to charge anyone. Unless the crime is known it seems ridiculous to suggest that someone has been 'proved innocent'. Innocent of what?
had they been accused of anything....have a think
-
If the trial was only about freedom of expression, why was so much emphasis placed by the SC on the contents of the archiving report, which had not even been written at the time Amaral's book was published? The SC decision used the report as a tool against presumption of innocence but failed to consider the facts which were clearly at odds with certain allegations made in Amaral's book. They also referred to his lack of intent to defame yet the book is all about the case against the McCanns, with insinuations & false allegations in virtually every chapter.
-
At the time of the archiving they didn't have enough evidence to decide what the crime was. let alone to charge anyone. Unless the crime is known it seems ridiculous to suggest that someone has been 'proved innocent'. Innocent of what?
The McCanns apparently failed to prove their innocence. Innocent of what?
-
all true....you must be carp at maths.....LOL
You let us believe you were working as a medic?
-
I think you need to be a little more precise if you are going to accuse me of lying
Well the post seems to have gone so I can't.
-
well if you are going to accuse me of lying you need to be precise....working in casualty as a young man when the bombs went of is not something I would lie about....It was an horrific experience
Didn't say it wasn't, there again you've just done it again.
-
If the trial was only about freedom of expression, why was so much emphasis placed by the SC on the contents of the archiving report, which had not even been written at the time Amaral's book was published? The SC decision used the report as a tool against presumption of innocence but failed to consider the facts which were clearly at odds with certain allegations made in Amaral's book. They also referred to his lack of intent to defame yet the book is all about the case against the McCanns, with insinuations & false allegations in virtually every chapter.
What are the dates then? If the case wasn't archived should the book have been written. Wer the files released to the public before the book was published?
You would think the logical order would be for the case to be archived, the files released to the public, and then the book published after GA has resigned. Is that not the order?
-
"McCann's file an annulment request following Supreme Court's decision." Great news.
-
Amaral retired from the PJ at midnight on 30/6/08.
The archiving report was signed off on 21/7/08 by the AG
http://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/P17/17_VOLUME_XVIIa_Page_4649.jpg
TToTL was released on 24/7/08
The PJ files were released to the public on 4/8/08.
-
Amaral retired from the PJ at midnight on 30/6/08.
The archiving report was signed off on 21/7/08 by the AG
http://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/P17/17_VOLUME_XVIIa_Page_4649.jpg
TToTL was released on 24/7/08
The PJ files were released to the public on 4/8/08.
Thanks for that Misty. Well he can hardly say the facts in his book were public knowledge since the book came out before the files were released.
-
Thanks for that Misty. Well he can hardly say the facts in his book were public knowledge since the book came out before the files were released.
Most of the "facts" had already been divulged to the press by various sources before the book was published and appeared in MSM so they were public knowledge. It was very cleverly orchestrated.
-
The Portuguese authorities can hardly clamp down on such parents when they can't keep their own house in order.
http://portugalresident.com/child-sex-trafficking-in-portugal-authorities-‘lose’-almost-half-‘rescued-children
The link provided does not work. Do you have one that does?
-
Give them their day in court, to be jugded guilty or innocent. Best all round. 8)--))
Thanks to Anne for great work!
What would the charge be?
-
Have you forgotten, the crime, if one occurred of course, remains unsolved.
No other person has been found to,be involved.
No person has been found to,be involved not "no other person has been found to,be involved". Nobody at all.
-
The link provided does not work. Do you have one that does?
In an effort to find your link I came across this article in the same paper. http://portugalresident.com/someone-knows-madeleine-mccann%E2%80%99s-abductor
-
No person has been found to,be involved not "no other person has been found to,be involved". Nobody at all.
Oh Rob, try again.
The McCann's were the last known people to have seen Madeleine.
No other person has been found to have been in there, other than known parties.
-
Oh Rob, try again.
The McCann's were the last known people to have seen Madeleine.
No other person has been found to have been in there, other than known parties.
You said "involved" in your original quote not "last known people to have seen".
-
You said "involved" in your original quote not "last known people to have seen".
Who is responsible for events initiating this case Rob ?
The tooth fairy ? 8**8:/:
-
Who is responsible for events initiating this case Rob ?
The tooth fairy ? 8**8:/:
Was that "tooth fairy" scenario examined by Goncalo? Or was he too busy munching sardines?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8M0Cc1OmdSw - pretty scary be warned!
-
Was that scenario examine by Goncalo? Or was he too busy munching sardines?
Pathetic Rob.
-
Pathetic Rob.
Look at the edited post please.
-
What for ?
You exhibited the Tony Parsons school of thought.
-
What for ?
You exhibited the Tony Parsons school of thought.
I don't know that reference at all.
When did I "exhibit the Tony Parsons school of thought"?
-
If the trial was only about freedom of expression, why was so much emphasis placed by the SC on the contents of the archiving report, which had not even been written at the time Amaral's book was published? The SC decision used the report as a tool against presumption of innocence but failed to consider the facts which were clearly at odds with certain allegations made in Amaral's book. They also referred to his lack of intent to defame yet the book is all about the case against the McCanns, with insinuations & false allegations in virtually every chapter.
The SC only answered the arguments made by the McCanns lawyer and she is the one who brought up the idea that the parents had been exonerated in the archiving report.
-
The SC only answered the arguments made by the McCanns lawyer and she is the one who brought up the idea that the parents had been exonerated in the archiving report.
So in affect the McCann lawyer is now arguing against their own argument.
-
Misty were the McCanns still arguidos when the book came out? I thought the archiving report was what took away their arguido status. I must admit I am confused as to this timeline and whether it is that important.
So in affect the McCann lawyer is now arguing against their own argument.
It reads like a pretty substantial argument formulated with help no doubt. (I was thinking of Carter Ruck but have no proof.)
-
Misty were the McCanns still arguidos when the book came out? I thought the archiving report was what took away their arguido status. I must admit I am confused as to this timeline and whether it is that important.
It reads like a pretty substantial argument formulated with help no doubt. (I was thinking of Carter Ruck but have no proof.)
The argument appears to be in summary...
"But we thought we were cleared?"
-
Misty were the McCanns still arguidos when the book came out? I thought the archiving report was what took away their arguido status. I must admit I am confused as to this timeline and whether it is that important.
It reads like a pretty substantial argument formulated with help no doubt. (I was thinking of Carter Ruck but have no proof.)
The way I read it and I of course could be mistaken after bringing the the claim of being exonerated into the argument the SC judges then dismissed this saying no such thing had happened the McCann lawyers are now saying you shouldn't have said that.
-
So in affect the McCann lawyer is now arguing against their own argument.
The McCanns lawyer is not arguing against their argument, she is just repeating it again, stating that the SC was wrong in saying that the archiving report did not exonerate the couple. Furthermore, she states that the SC were frivolous in making their decision.
-
If the trial was only about freedom of expression, why was so much emphasis placed by the SC on the contents of the archiving report, which had not even been written at the time Amaral's book was published? The SC decision used the report as a tool against presumption of innocence but failed to consider the facts which were clearly at odds with certain allegations made in Amaral's book. They also referred to his lack of intent to defame yet the book is all about the case against the McCanns, with insinuations & false allegations in virtually every chapter.
The SC judges paid attention to the archiving dispatch because Duarte's arguments relied on it. I think arguments about the contents of the book are immaterial now.
The only thing left is the complaint and the remaining question is whether the archiving dispatch said the McCanns had been 'proved innocent' or not.
-
The way I read it and I of course could be mistaken after bringing the the claim of being exonerated into the argument the SC judges then dismissed this saying no such thing had happened the McCann lawyers are now saying you shouldn't have said that.
The book came out before the archiving report but did the McCanns still have their arguido status then too? If that was the case and they were still arguidos then the McCanns could not have thought themselves cleared, but if the arguido status had been removed before the book came out, I can't see how they thought they were cleared.
Could the date on the archiving report be a typographical error?
The McCanns lawyer is not arguing against their argument, she is just repeating it again, stating that the SC was wrong in saying that the archiving report did not exonerate the couple. Furthermore, she states that the SC were frivolous in making their decision.
Did that "frivolous" word reappear?
The SC judges paid attention to the archiving dispatch because Duarte's arguments relied on it. I think arguments about the contents of the book are immaterial now.
The only thing left is the complaint and the remaining question is whether the archiving dispatch said the McCanns had been 'proved innocent' or not.
Do you think the timing of the events are unimportant?
-
The argument appears to be in summary...
"But we thought we were cleared?"
They go further in their complaint and say 'proved innocent'.
-
They go further in their complaint and say 'proved innocent'.
as above "Do you think the timing of the events are unimportant?"
-
Please be aware that in the OP, Note 7 has been amended and Note 9 added.
-
Please be aware that in the OP, Note 7 has been amended and Note 9 added.
Note 7 I don't recall what it said previously but the new one states
"Note 7 : The complexity of the filing order, erroneously known as the “AG Report”, is likely related to the difficult task the Public Ministry was facing. And one has to admit that the dispatch is not written as the judges of the STJ remarkably write their rulings. Mr Murat’s arguido status, twice extended, required to put an end to the criminal investigation (the status of arguidos can’t be removed before the end of that investigation phase). Furthermore the acquaintances of the MCs rejected the request of the Prosecutor to go back to PDL in order to be part in a reconstitution of the 3rd of May events, though the Prosecutor clearly warned that it was the last chance for boosting the rather stagnant criminal investigation. These are the significant circumstances involving the writing of the filing order. One has to acknowledge an important point however : the Prosecutors foresaw that their constrained decision, as it couldn’t exonerate the MCs, the crime being undetermined, would reflect the “major damage done to the MCs” by the refusal of the group to collaborate with the PJ."
I still struggle to accept why the McCanns should pay for the non cooperation of the Tapas 7 and Jez Wilkins.
-
At the time of the archiving they didn't have enough evidence to decide what the crime was. let alone to charge anyone. Unless the crime is known it seems ridiculous to suggest that someone has been 'proved innocent'. Innocent of what?
Exactly, 'innocent of what?' the McCann's don't have to prove they are innocent as they have never been charged with being guilty in the first place.
-
Exactly, 'innocent of what?' the McCann's don't have to prove they are innocent as they have been charged with being guilty in the first place.
Innocent of the accusations made against them to become an arguido in the first place.
-
Innocent of the accusations made against them to become an arguido in the first place.
Sorry Rob, my post should have read 'have never been charged'.
-
Sorry Rob, my post should have read 'have never been charged'.
OK but what I said is still alright. The McCanns are "Innocent of the accusations [that were] made against them to become an arguido in the first place".
-
Exactly, 'innocent of what?' the McCann's don't have to prove they are innocent as they have never been charged with being guilty in the first place.
Why claim that the archiving dispatch referred to evidence 'proving' their innocence then?
-
Why claim that the archiving dispatch referred to evidence 'proving' their innocence then?
The archiving report shows they are "Innocent of the accusations [that were] made against them to become an arguido in the first place".
-
Why claim that the archiving dispatch referred to evidence 'proving' their innocence then?
Or 'confirming' their innocence?
-
OK but what I said is still alright. The McCanns are "Innocent of the accusations [that were] made against them to become an arguido in the first place".
This quote from the Final report clearly confirms that was the position IMO.
Quote
To this can be added that, in reality, NONE of the indications that led to their constitution as arguidos was later confirmed or consolidated.
unquote
IOW none of the reasons put forward by the PJ to make the McCanns arquidos turned out to be valid reasons.
-
This quote from the Final report clearly confirms that was the position IMO.
Quote
To this can be added that, in reality, NONE of the indications that led to their constitution as arguidos was later confirmed or consolidated.
unquote
IOW none of the reasons put forward by the PJ to make the McCanns arquidos turned out to be valid reasons.
That is wrong on many levels, not confirming something does not make it invalid.
-
That is wrong on many levels, not confirming something does not make it invalid.
What were the valid reasons for making Murat an arguido then? Same wording for him, so let's hear it.
-
So who was it who/whom pointed to Murat in the first place ?
-
So who was it who/whom pointed to Murat in the first place ?
From the Portuguese side -
http://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/PJ/ROBERT-MURAT.htm
02-Processos Volume II pages 461 to 462
02_VOLUME_IIa_Page_461
02_VOLUME_IIa_Page_462
02-Processos Volume II PJ Record 8th May 2007-
04-PROCESSO 4 - 960 to 961
04-Processos Vol IV Pages 957 - 958
-
This quote from the Final report clearly confirms that was the position IMO.
Quote
To this can be added that, in reality, NONE of the indications that led to their constitution as arguidos was later confirmed or consolidated.
unquote
IOW none of the reasons put forward by the PJ to make the McCanns arquidos turned out to be valid reasons.
There were 'indications' which led to them being made arguidos.
The indications were not confirmed.
I don't think 'unconfimed' can be equated to 'disproved'.
-
Someone posted this on the Facebook page in relation to the latest developments in Lisbon. I thought it quite funny.
(http://www.netanimations.net/Moving-animated-picture-of-ping-pong-cats.gif)
-
Someone posted this on the Facebook page. I thought it quite funny.
(http://www.netanimations.net/Moving-animated-picture-of-ping-pong-cats.gif)
Fabulous, but is it strictly on-topic or did you mean to post it on the "pictures of my pets" thread?
-
Fabulous, but is it strictly on-topic or did you mean to post it on the "pictures of my pets" thread?
On topic as far as relativity goes. I wonder who's who?
-
It looks like they are playing doubles in "Toilet Tennis".
-
Please be aware that the OP has been edited with the addition of further Notes. Please refer to Notes 1 to 14
-
Just to be clear that the McCanns are challenging the AG as well as the SC;
The police inquiry into Madeleine McCann's disappearance has been shelved because of a lack of evidence, Portugal's attorney general has said.
BBC News Monday, 21 July 2008 18:48 UK
The case was closed because of lack of evidence but could be reopened at any time if important information comes to light, according to Fernando Jose Pinto Monteiro's office.
Sky News Monday July 21, 2008
Fernando Jose Pinto Monteiro, Portugal's Attorney-General, told police to halt the investigation into of Madeleine's disappearance.
A statement released by his office confirmed that it had decided to "close the file on the investigation concerning the disappearance of the minor Madeleine McCann due to lack of evidence that any crime was committed by the persons placed under formal investigation".
Timesonline July 22, 2008
http://www.gerrymccannsblogs.co.uk/Nigel/id134.htm
-
Just to be clear that the McCanns are challenging the AG as well as the SC;
The police inquiry into Madeleine McCann's disappearance has been shelved because of a lack of evidence, Portugal's attorney general has said.
BBC News Monday, 21 July 2008 18:48 UK
The case was closed because of lack of evidence but could be reopened at any time if important information comes to light, according to Fernando Jose Pinto Monteiro's office.
Sky News Monday July 21, 2008
Fernando Jose Pinto Monteiro, Portugal's Attorney-General, told police to halt the investigation into of Madeleine's disappearance.
A statement released by his office confirmed that it had decided to "close the file on the investigation concerning the disappearance of the minor Madeleine McCann due to lack of evidence that any crime was committed by the persons placed under formal investigation".
Timesonline July 22, 2008
http://www.gerrymccannsblogs.co.uk/Nigel/id134.htm
Given that the dictionary definition of "lack" is deficiency or abence - what point are you trying to make exactly?
-
Given that the dictionary definition of "lack" is deficiency or abence - what point are you trying to make exactly?
Do you see no difference between 'lack of evidence' and 'evidence proving innocence'? I do.
The SC judges said;
Page 70
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.
-
Do you see no difference between 'lack of evidence' and 'evidence proving innocence'? I do.
The SC judges said;
Page 70
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.
an absence of evidence is evidence of innocence I would say. For example, there was an absence of evidence that Murat abducted Madeleine, therefore I would say this was evidence that he was innocent. Agree or disagree?
-
an absence of evidence is evidence of innocence I would say. For example, there was an absence of evidence that Murat abducted Madeleine, therefore I would say this was evidence that he was innocent. Agree or disagree?
Not in double jeopardy cases.
-
Not in double jeopardy cases.
You didn't answer my question.
BTW - in cases of double jeopardy there has to have been an initial charge and trial, which assumes there must be some evidence presented in court in the first place. Trials rarely take place on the basis of an absence of evidence (not in civilized countries anyway).
-
Do you see no difference between 'lack of evidence' and 'evidence proving innocence'? I do.
The SC judges said;
Page 70
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 lack of evidence is evidence of innocence.. by definition
Not proof but certainly evidence
-
You didn't answer my question.
BTW - in cases of double jeopardy there has to have been an initial charge and trial, which assumes there must be some evidence presented in court in the first place. Trials rarely take place on the basis of an absence of evidence (not in civilized countries anyway).
Do you consider circumstantial evidence evidence ( let's take the ' I won't answer your question if you don't answer mine' as read shall we ! )
-
an absence of evidence is evidence of innocence I would say. For example, there was an absence of evidence that Murat abducted Madeleine, therefore I would say this was evidence that he was innocent. Agree or disagree?
Afraid not. An 'argument from ignorance' is a logical fallacy, as I have pointed out before.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Argument_from_ignorance
-
Afraid not. An 'argument from ignorance' is a logical fallacy, as I have pointed out before.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Argument_from_ignorance
So, there is no evidence that Murat is innocent, nor that he has he been cleared. Fair enough.
-
Afraid not. An 'argument from ignorance' is a logical fallacy, as I have pointed out before.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Argument_from_ignorance
you need to read it again and you will see you are wrong in this instance...
Argument from ignorance (from Latin: argumentum ad ignorantiam), also known as appeal to ignorance (in which ignorance represents "a lack of contrary evidence"), is a fallacy in informal logic. It asserts that a proposition is true because it has not yet been proved false (or vice versa). This represents a type of false dichotomy in that it excludes a third option, which is that: there may have been an insufficient investigation, and therefore there is insufficient information to prove the proposition be either true or false. Nor does it allow the admission that the choices may in fact not be two (true or false), but may be as many as four
If I was to say that the lack of evidence PROVES the mccanns ARE innocent then that would be an argument from ignorance...
but that is not what is being said.......what is being said is that the absence of evidence is evidence of innocence...then that is perfectly correct.....you need to think about it
-
That is wrong on many levels, not confirming something does not make it invalid.
It was invalid that they remain arguidos though. That bit is confirmed as above.
-
So who was it who/whom pointed to Murat in the first place ?
Was it Silvia Batista? Whoever wrote the anonymous letter has something to answer for.
-
Do you see no difference between 'lack of evidence' and 'evidence proving innocence'? I do.
The SC judges said;
Page 70
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.
Can you list the type of evidence that would be 'evidence proving innocence'?
As an arguido you don't have to answer questions, but every question unanswered is further lack evidence proving innocence, yet it doesn't imply guilt either. It is a weird situation to be in where you are damned if you do and damned if you don't, not because you are guilty but don't want to make a mistake and self incriminate.
-
Can you list the type of evidence that would be 'evidence proving innocence'?
gunits is a little confused....she is talking about proof of innocence wheras the quote from the SC talks of evidence of innocence.....there certainly is evidence of innocence......
-
sceptics say that there could not have been an abductor because no forensic evidence has been found. they are using absence of evidence as proof that there was no abductor....that is an argument from ignorance.....there cant have been an abduction because there is no evidence....another argument from ignorance
-
gunits is a little confused....she is talking about proof of innocence wheras the quote from the SC talks of evidence of innocence.....there certainly is evidence of innocence......
What was it then, can you list it?
-
What was it then, can you list it?
absence of evidence is evidence of innocence....tehn we have the list from the archiving report
-
sceptics say that there could not have been an abductor because no forensic evidence has been found. they are using absence of evidence as proof that there was no abductor....that is an argument from ignorance.....there cant have been an abduction because there is no evidence....another argument from ignorance
Clearly, the absence of any evidence of an intruder has no significance for you?
-
Do you consider circumstantial evidence evidence ( let's take the ' I won't answer your question if you don't answer mine' as read shall we ! )
It will be interesting to see how he answers that one... ?{)(**
-
you need to read it again and you will see you are wrong in this instance...
Argument from ignorance (from Latin: argumentum ad ignorantiam), also known as appeal to ignorance (in which ignorance represents "a lack of contrary evidence"), is a fallacy in informal logic. It asserts that a proposition is true because it has not yet been proved false (or vice versa). This represents a type of false dichotomy in that it excludes a third option, which is that: there may have been an insufficient investigation, and therefore there is insufficient information to prove the proposition be either true or false. Nor does it allow the admission that the choices may in fact not be two (true or false), but may be as many as four
If I was to say that the lack of evidence PROVES the mccanns ARE innocent then that would be an argument from ignorance...
but that is not what is being said.......what is being said is that the absence of evidence is evidence of innocence...then that is perfectly correct.....you need to think about it
OK. So you leave three children alone in a room and an ornament gets broken. All three children deny breaking it. You search around and question the children but they continue to deny it. You have no evidence to tell you what happened. Does that mean all three children are innocent?
-
OK. So you leave three children alone in a room and an ornament gets broken. All three children deny breaking it. You search around and question the children but they continue to deny it. You have no evidence to tell you what happened. Does that mean all three children are innocent?
you again are asking for proof of innocence.
the fact that there is no evidence against the mccanns supports the view they are innocent....ie...it is evidence of innocence
-
you need to read it again and you will see you are wrong in this instance...
Argument from ignorance (from Latin: argumentum ad ignorantiam), also known as appeal to ignorance (in which ignorance represents "a lack of contrary evidence"), is a fallacy in informal logic. It asserts that a proposition is true because it has not yet been proved false (or vice versa). This represents a type of false dichotomy in that it excludes a third option, which is that: there may have been an insufficient investigation, and therefore there is insufficient information to prove the proposition be either true or false. Nor does it allow the admission that the choices may in fact not be two (true or false), but may be as many as four
If I was to say that the lack of evidence PROVES the mccanns ARE innocent then that would be an argument from ignorance...
but that is not what is being said.......what is being said is that the absence of evidence is evidence of innocence...then that is perfectly correct.....you need to think about it
It is a difficult concept for some this "absence of evidence" thing.
You have explained it very well.
Pity you hadn't been able to explain how it works to the appeal court judges, could have saved them from laying down such an embarrassing judgement leaving it entirely appropriate for the annulment request to be submitted.
-
Clearly, the absence of any evidence of an intruder has no significance for you?
the absence of evidence has significance but does not exclude an intruder
-
OK. So you leave three children alone in a room and an ornament gets broken. All three children deny breaking it. You search around and question the children but they continue to deny it. You have no evidence to tell you what happened. Does that mean all three children are innocent?
Possibly.
The exact scenario you described happened in my house with a heavy crystal vase.
No-one would 'confess'.
It was only years down the line when the exact break was replicated in the remaining matching vase without human interaction of any kind, that the children's innocence was established.
Therefore no mystery. No culprit. Perhaps just a design fault or a flaw in the crystal.
-
you again are asking for proof of innocence.
the fact that there is no evidence against the mccanns supports the view they are innocent....ie...it is evidence of innocence
They, however, maintain that the inquiry found evidence which proved their innocence.
As far as the appellants are aware of, the archiving at stake was carried out, in the course of the investigation, because sufficient proof had been gathered that the then arguidos did not commit any facts of a criminal relevance and in any way whatsoever, this conclusion substantiating an archiving for factual reasons,
-
Possibly.
The exact scenario you described happened in my house with a heavy crystal vase.
No-one would 'confess'.
It was only years down the line when the exact break was replicated in the remaining matching vase without human interaction of any kind, that the children's innocence was established.
Therefore no mystery. No culprit. Perhaps just a design fault or a flaw in the crystal.
At the time, however, the absence of evidence didn't constitute evidence of innocence. It simply meant you didn't know what happened.
-
They, however, maintain that the inquiry found evidence which proved their innocence.
As far as the appellants are aware of, the archiving at stake was carried out, in the course of the investigation, because sufficient proof had been gathered that the then arguidos did not commit any facts of a criminal relevance and in any way whatsoever, this conclusion substantiating an archiving for factual reasons,
sufficient proof is an odd expression....there is either proof or not. It may well be it is a bad transaltion and should read ...sufficient evidence....
prova......can be translated as both proof or evidence
-
At the time, however, the absence of evidence didn't constitute evidence of innocence. It simply meant you didn't know what happened.
That is why they are presumed innocent till proven guilty.
-
It is a difficult concept for some this "absence of evidence" thing.
You have explained it very well.
Pity you hadn't been able to explain how it works to the appeal court judges, could have saved them from laying down such an embarrassing judgement leaving it entirely appropriate for the annulment request to be submitted.
I think Davel has explained very well why the SC reached their conclusions regarding the innocence question, as there is no proof of innocence and no one else has been found guilty then they cannot have been cleared. Still presumed innocent in a court of law if it ever happened.
-
I think Davel has explained very well why the SC reached their conclusions regarding the innocence question, as there is no proof of innocence and no one else has been found guilty then they cannot have been cleared. Still presumed innocent in a court of law if it ever happened.
A person has the right to be presumed innocent by everyone at all times till proven guilty, not just once charged.
-
Presumed innocent by everyone at all times till proven guilty, not just once charged.
The presumption of innocence is a legal requirement applicable to anyone involved in criminal proceedings.
The SC said it wasn't applicable 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 Human Rights) is a rule of treatment to be given to the arguido (formal suspect) throughout the judicial criminal process.
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).
the outcome of the present case is not such as to call into question the extra-procedural dimension of the presumption 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.
-
The presumption of innocence is a legal requirement applicable to anyone involved in criminal proceedings.
The SC said it wasn't applicable 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 Human Rights) is a rule of treatment to be given to the arguido (formal suspect) throughout the judicial criminal process.
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).
the outcome of the present case is not such as to call into question the extra-procedural dimension of the presumption 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.
Would the key word there be "subsequent" as opposed to "all" civil proceedings.
For the word subsequent to apply there had to be the criminal case first. This hasn't happened.
Amaral's accusations are just a furthering of the criminal process and not a civil action for compensation.
-
I think Davel has explained very well why the SC reached their conclusions regarding the innocence question, as there is no proof of innocence and no one else has been found guilty then they cannot have been cleared. Still presumed innocent in a court of law if it ever happened.
you havent been paying attention....it seems the SC ruling said that the archiving report wwas not evidence of innocence.....thats not correct...it is
-
Would the key word there be "subsequent" as opposed to "all" civil proceedings.
For the word subsequent to apply there had to be the criminal case first. This hasn't happened.
Amaral's accusations are just a furthering of the criminal process and not a civil action for compensation.
That is correct
-
you havent been paying attention....it seems the SC ruling said that the archiving report wwas not evidence of innocence.....thats not correct...it is
LOL
You really don't understand.
-
It is a difficult concept for some this "absence of evidence" thing.
You have explained it very well.
Pity you hadn't been able to explain how it works to the appeal court judges, could have saved them from laying down such an embarrassing judgement leaving it entirely appropriate for the annulment request to be submitted.
They could have Googled it like he did.................. @)(++(*
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Argument_from_ignorance
-
They could have Googled it like he did.................. @)(++(*
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Argument_from_ignorance
gunit googled it...read it...but unfortunately didnt understand it
-
It is a difficult concept for some this "absence of evidence" thing.
You have explained it very well.
Pity you hadn't been able to explain how it works to the appeal court judges, could have saved them from laying down such an embarrassing judgement leaving it entirely appropriate for the annulment request to be submitted.
I'll try again. If you haven't got something (evidence) then you haven't got it. If you haven't got it it may be because it doesn't exist, because you are looking in the wrong place or because you do have it but don't recognise it. The lack of it can't be used as evidence of anything because you don't know why you haven't got it.
-
I'll try again. If you haven't got something (evidence) then you haven't got it. If you haven't got it it may be because it doesn't exist, because you are looking in the wrong place or because you do have it but don't recognise it. The lack of it can't be used as evidence of anything because you don't know why you haven't got it.
that must be one of the most jumbled posts ever on this forum.....
try this....... someone appears in court......the prosecution offers no evidence...he is acquitted due to lack of evidence....lack of evidence therefore provides evidence of his innocence
-
I'll try again. If you haven't got something (evidence) then you haven't got it. If you haven't got it it may be because it doesn't exist, because you are looking in the wrong place or because you do have it but don't recognise it. The lack of it can't be used as evidence of anything because you don't know why you haven't got it.
so the lack of evidence could be evidence that none exists, therefore it's evidence. 8)--))
-
A judge has directed the acquittal of a prison officer accused of making a false needle-stick allegation in Mountjoy Prison.
Judge Patricia Ryan directed the jury to acquit Robert O’Neill (aged 44) after a defence application to withdraw the case because there was no evidence to prove the accused had made a false allegation.
Acquittal due to lack of evidence..........so lack of eveidence IS evidence of innocence
-
A judge has directed the acquittal of a prison officer accused of making a false needle-stick allegation in Mountjoy Prison.
Judge Patricia Ryan directed the jury to acquit Robert O’Neill (aged 44) after a defence application to withdraw the case because there was no evidence to prove the accused had made a false allegation.
Acquittal due to lack of evidence..........so lack of eveidence IS evidence of innocence
The evidence to prove his guilt wasn't found. That doesn't mean he was innocent, it means they were unable to prove his guilt.
-
The evidence to prove his guilt wasn't found. That doesn't mean he was innocent, it means they were unable to prove his guilt.
that applies to everyone found not guilty....so even if the mccanns had been tried and found not guilty that would not prove their innocence.......however im sure you would agree that an acquittal is evidence of innocence.....
-
A judge has directed the acquittal of a prison officer accused of making a false needle-stick allegation in Mountjoy Prison.
Judge Patricia Ryan directed the jury to acquit Robert O’Neill (aged 44) after a defence application to withdraw the case because there was no evidence to prove the accused had made a false allegation.
Acquittal due to lack of evidence..........so lack of evidence IS evidence of innocence
No it isn't Dave, lack of evidence just means there was an insufficiency of evidence to conduct a trial.
-
that applies to everyone found not guilty....so even if the mccanns had been tried and found not guilty that would not prove their innocence.......however im sure you would agree that an acquittal is evidence of innocence.....
That's correct, a not guilty verdict doesn't necessarily mean that someone is innocent. You only need to look at the Barry George and Siôn Jenkins cases where both were cleared but denied compensation because the Home Office decreed that innocence is much more than not being convicted of a crime.
https://www.theguardian.com/uk/2010/aug/15/sion-jenkins-billie-jo-compensation
-
that applies to everyone found not guilty....so even if the mccanns had been tried and found not guilty that would not prove their innocence.......however im sure you would agree that an acquittal is evidence of innocence.....
"Acquittal" equates to "not guilty" which is not the same as innocent.
-
"Acquittal" equates to "not guilty" which is not the same as innocent.
I thought the SC had to consider presumption of innocence rather than innocence itself.
-
How then would a reconstitution have proved the McCanns innocence? According to the Final Report this was a chance missed by the McCanns so someone kindly explain how.
-
How then would a reconstitution have proved the McCanns innocence? According to the Final Report this was a chance missed by the McCanns so someone kindly explain how.
It would presumably validated the timelines and helped jog memories.
-
No it isn't Dave, lack of evidence just means there was an insufficiency of evidence to conduct a trial.
just like if someone is found not guilty it doesnt mean they are innocent....but it is evidence they are innocent
-
It would presumably validated the timelines and helped jog memories.
Sorry that would have proved nothing. The McCanns could have murdered the child, chopped her up and fed her to the pigs, the timeline would not have precluded that possibility would it?
-
"Acquittal" equates to "not guilty" which is not the same as innocent.
you will find i have alraedy pointed that out... a million times..
a not guilty verdict must be evidence someone is innocent....though not proof
-
Sorry that would have proved nothing. The McCanns could have murdered the child, chopped her up and fed her to the pigs, the timeline would not have precluded that possibility would it?
and of course cleaned the chalet from top to bottom so no evidence remains.....
-
Sorry that would have proved nothing. The McCanns could have murdered the child, chopped her up and fed her to the pigs, the timeline would not have precluded that possibility would it?
They are not called the scales of justice for nothing. Anything that adds to one side or the other is useful from a point of view of getting justice. Of course, in this case, one side disengaged while the balance was not in their favour.
-
you will find i have alraedy pointed that out... a million times..
a not guilty verdict must be evidence someone is innocent....though not proof
That's either a gross exaggeration or a bare faced lie which puts your posts and opinions in perspective.
-
They are not called the scales of justice for nothing. Anything that adds to one side or the other is useful from a point of view of getting justice. Of course, in this case, one side disengaged while the balance was not in their favour.
they missed the chance to PROVE their INNOCENCE. Bollocks really wasn't it?
-
I thought the SC had to consider presumption of innocence rather than innocence itself.
The McCanns' complaint claims;
Page 6
As far as the appellants are aware of, the archiving at stake was carried out, in the course of the investigation, because sufficient proof had been gathered that the then arguidos did not commit any facts of a criminal relevance and in any way whatsoever,
The archiving, of course, was not due to sufficient proof of their innocence being gathered, it was due to lack of evidence to progress the case.
Hence davel's attempts to argue that a lack of evidence of guilt is evidence of innocence, which is clearly not true.
-
The McCanns' complaint claims;
Page 6
As far as the appellants are aware of, the archiving at stake was carried out, in the course of the investigation, because sufficient proof had been gathered that the then arguidos did not commit any facts of a criminal relevance and in any way whatsoever,
The archiving, of course, was not due to sufficient proof of their innocence being gathered, it was due to lack of evidence to progress the case.
Hence davel's attempts to argue that a lack of evidence of guilt is evidence of innocence, which is clearly not true.
Is everyone just as not innocent then? For there was no evidence found to clear you, me, in fact everyone.
-
It would presumably validated the timelines and helped jog memories.
Could a reconstruction have ever shown that the McCanns were innocent?
-
The McCanns' complaint claims;
Page 6
As far as the appellants are aware of, the archiving at stake was carried out, in the course of the investigation, because sufficient proof had been gathered that the then arguidos did not commit any facts of a criminal relevance and in any way whatsoever,
The archiving, of course, was not due to sufficient proof of their innocence being gathered, it was due to lack of evidence to progress the case.
Hence davel's attempts to argue that a lack of evidence of guilt is evidence of innocence, which is clearly not true.
It clearly is true but I think you don't understand what evidence means
It does not mean proof
You have been proved wrong but you can't possibly admit it
-
Is everyone just as not innocent then? For there was no evidence found to clear you, me, in fact everyone.
Have you been cleared in the McCann case? Serious question.
-
One thing that has come out of this is the ridiculous suggestion that the McCanns could have proved their innocence
It is agreed that even a trial and not guilty verdict does not prove innocence so how could a reconstruction
Ridiculous
-
Is everyone just as not innocent then? For there was no evidence found to clear you, me, in fact everyone.
Innocence is not a legal term. No court has ever reached a verdict of 'innocent'. They may judge someone 'not guilty', but that doesn't equate to 'innocent'. Trying to bring innocence into a legal discussion doesn't work because the law has nothing to say on the subject.
-
Innocence is not a legal term. No court has ever reached a verdict of 'innocent'. They may judge someone 'not guilty', but that doesn't equate to 'innocent'. Trying to bring innocence into a legal discussion doesn't work because the law has nothing to say on the subject.
ridiculous....it was the archiving report that brought the term into the discussion
then we have the presumption of innocence...a legal term
-
One thing that has come out of this is the ridiculous suggestion that the McCanns could have proved their innocence
It is agreed that even a trial and not guilty verdict does not prove innocence so how could a reconstruction
Ridiculous
So the McCanns claim that the investigation gathered enough evidence to prove their innocence is clearly ridiculous also and will be rejected.
-
So the McCanns claim that the investigation gathered enough evidence to prove their innocence is clearly ridiculous also and will be rejected.
it is your argument that is ridiculous....you spend several days arguing about evidence of innocence and suddennly decide you dont like the term.
I have seen nothing about innocence being proven....only evidence of innocence...
and then the word prove....absolute proof or beyond reasonable doubt...
your logic is jumbled
-
Have you been cleared in the McCann case? Serious question.
Originally Goncalo Amaral included the friends as being complicit in the act of hiding the body but strangely enough no one has looked at making them arguidos. Were they ever found to be innocent? Was Jez Wilkins ever found to be innocent? Since there was no evidence found how did any of these witnesses become proven innocent?
Was it just that they never came under suspicion?
So the McCanns claim that the investigation gathered enough evidence to prove their innocence is clearly ridiculous also and will be rejected.
It seems unfair that the SC would set a standard that can never be met.
Innocence is not a legal term. No court has ever reached a verdict of 'innocent'. They may judge someone 'not guilty', but that doesn't equate to 'innocent'. Trying to bring innocence into a legal discussion doesn't work because the law has nothing to say on the subject.
Yet it was definitely used in the SC judgement.
-
So the McCanns claim that the investigation gathered enough evidence to prove their innocence is clearly ridiculous also and will be rejected.
from what i can see ...although none of us are sure of the exact translation....the mccanns claim the archiving report is evidence of innocence...which is clearly true and the SC claim it is not evidence of innocence which is clearly wrong
-
Innocence is not a legal term. No court has ever reached a verdict of 'innocent'. They may judge someone 'not guilty', but that doesn't equate to 'innocent'. Trying to bring innocence into a legal discussion doesn't work because the law has nothing to say on the subject.
your quote...
Page 70
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.
so the SC talks about innocence....which you claim is not a legal term...it talks about evidence of innocence....not proof..
you have totally lost the argument but cannot admit it....me being right is just too much for you and the other sceptics to bear
the absence of evidence is evidence of innocence....the SC is wrong...Duarte is right
-
ridiculous....it was the archiving report that brought the term into the discussion
then we have the presumption of innocence...a legal term
The presumption of innocence is a legal term. It is the basis on which the judiciary has to deal with those accused of committing a crime. All it means is that the burden of proof lies with the accusers to prove guilt, not with the defendant to prove innocence.
-
The presumption of innocence is a legal term. It is the basis on which the judiciary has to deal with those accused of committing a crime. All it means is that the burden of proof lies with the accusers to prove guilt, not with the defendant to prove innocence.
have alook at my post above...the SC talk of innocence...the archiving report talks of innocence...your claim is ridiculously wrong
-
Originally Goncalo Amaral included the friends as being complicit in the act of hiding the body but strangely enough no one has looked at making them arguidos. Were they ever found to be innocent? Was Jez Wilkins ever found to be innocent? Since there was no evidence found how did any of these witnesses become proven innocent?
Was it just that they never came under suspicion?It seems unfair that the SC would set a standard that can never be met.
Yet it was definitely used in the SC judgement.
Please answer the question.
-
your quote...
Page 70
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.
so the SC talks about innocence....which you claim is not a legal term...it talks about evidence of innocence....not proof..
you have totally lost the argument but cannot admit it....me being right is just too much for you and the other sceptics to bear
the absence of evidence is evidence of innocence....the SC is wrong...Duarte is right
It is you who cannot understand. The judges were answering the claim made by the McCanns and rejecting it. They speak of 'evidence of innocence' only because Duarte does.
They are quite clear; the archiving occurred due to lack of evidence, Not, as Duarte claimed due to evidence of innocence.
-
It is you who cannot understand. The judges were answering the claim made by the McCanns and rejecting it. They speak of 'evidence of innocence' only because Duarte does.
They are quite clear; the archiving occurred due to lack of evidence, Not, as Duarte claimed due to evidence of innocence.
Page 70
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.
this is the judges statement...it was made by them...in their language signed by them...wake up
-
So what if anything can be treated as evidence of innocence in this case? "Nothing" seems to be the SC's opinion. Which seems to suggest that we are all potentially guilty of this crime. Which means the orignal report's claim that the McCanns failed to prove their innocence is a complete nonsense and all those demanding a reconstruction for this same reason are equally deluded. So when the current arguidos have their arguido status removed they will not have been cleared and will presumably be "in the frame" until the day they die, unless the case is ever solved. Nice. Once a suspect always a suspect it would seem.
-
Have you been cleared in the McCann case? Serious question.
Now finally I understand your question. I read it before and didn't understand it, but you are asking me if I was ever cleared in the McCann case and I'd have to say "No". No one has officially cleared me. I can only assume there was insufficient evidence of innocence.
-
So what if anything can be treated as evidence of innocence in this case? "Nothing" seems to be the SC's opinion. Which seems to suggest that we are all potentially guilty of this crime. Which means the orignal report's claim that the McCanns failed to prove their innocence is a complete nonsense and all those demanding a reconstruction for this same reason are equally deluded. So when the current arguidos have their arguido status removed they will not have been cleared and will presumably be "in the frame" until the day they die, unless the case is ever solved. Nice. Once a suspect always a suspect it would seem.
I think it even becomes worse than that even if you are not a suspect up till now you are not clear of becoming a suspect in the future, hence not in the clear either.
-
It is you who cannot understand. The judges were answering the claim made by the McCanns and rejecting it. They speak of 'evidence of innocence' only because Duarte does.
They are quite clear; the archiving occurred due to lack of evidence, Not, as Duarte claimed due to evidence of innocence.
dave; and supporters only read what they want to read
-
Page 70
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.
this is the judges statement...it was made by them...in their language signed by them...wake up
In answer to and rejection of the claim made by those appealing. They brought the concept up and it was dismissed.
Now they have stamped their feet and complained, insisting that they are right and three of the most senior judges in Portugal are wrong. I'll be very surprised if the complaint succeeds, but also very interested in trying to understand why.
I hope that others will try to understand why if the complaint is rejected, rather than dismissing it as flawed and criticising Portugal, their judges and their Judiciary.
-
Now finally I understand your question. I read it before and didn't understand it, but you are asking me if I was ever cleared in the McCann case and I'd have to say "No". No one has officially cleared me. I can only assume there was insufficient evidence of innocence.
So you are not cleared and if you went to trial you would have the presumption of innocence. You are in the same position as the McCanns except you have never been an arguido.
-
So you are not cleared and if you went to trial you would have the presumption of innocence. You are in the same position as the McCanns except you have never been an arguido.
But if rather than pressing charges they made me an arguido and later archived the case I would no longer have the presumption of innocence because there was insufficient evidence of innocence.
-
But if rather than pressing charges they made me an arguido and later archived the case I would no longer have the presumption of evidence because there was insufficient evidence of innocence.
You would still have the presumption of innocence at trial the same as the McCanns would.
-
I don't understand the fuss about this. The McCanns had the original verdict overturned, but they don't appear to have been seeking a verdict of Innocence in the disappearance of Madeleine.
It is only certain parties commenting on Social Media who wish to see it as a point of suspicion against The McCanns.
-
You would still have the presumption of innocence at trial the same as the McCanns would.
Yes but they have not been tried. And I have not been tried, but there is insufficient evidence to clear me because there is insufficient evidence to convict me.
-
Yes but they have not been tried. And I have not been tried, but there is insufficient evidence to clear me because there is insufficient evidence to convict me.
You can only be cleared in a trial or if another is found guilty or hard evidence of your non involvement is found. You would be cleared as you would have evidence of being the other side of the world.
-
I don't understand the fuss about this. The McCanns had the original verdict overturned, but they don't appear to have been seeking a verdict of Innocence in the disappearance of Madeleine.
It is only certain parties commenting on Social Media who wish to see it as a point of suspicion against The McCanns.
The annulment request is based on the cleared/innocent question, it isn't about anything else.
-
You can only be cleared in a trial or if another is found guilty or hard evidence of your non involvement is found. You would be cleared as you would have evidence of being the other side of the world.
That might have been the year I was travelling through Europe.
But I think you have hit the nail on the head, the only evidence of innocence that really counts is a strong alibi. I wonder how many people have to confirm my alibi before the PJ accept I'm innocent?
The McCanns check the apartment so there are times their alibi actually coincides with the crime scene, but there was no time given for the commission of the crime either so the crime could have been committed between possibly 5:30 right up to 11:30 maybe.
-
So you are not cleared and if you went to trial you would have the presumption of innocence. You are in the same position as the McCanns except you have never been an arguido.
A very clear and simple explanation Slarti. Why so many (including, it seems, the McCanns and their libel lawyers) cannot understand escapes me. I suppose it could be that they don't want to understand.
-
The annulment request is based on the cleared/innocent question, it isn't about anything else.
That is an insufficient explanation. The case is about Amaral's right to say what he likes and not about the guilt or innocence of The McCanns.
-
That is an insufficient explanation. The case is about Amaral's right to say what he likes and not about the guilt or innocence of The McCanns.
The guilt or innocence of the McCanns was brought up by Duarte in her appeal to the Supreme Court.
-
That is an insufficient explanation. The case is about Amaral's right to say what he likes and not about the guilt or innocence of The McCanns.
The judges say he can say what he likes provided the McCanns were not innocent, and there was insufficient evidence of innocence to say they were innocent. It is complex.
-
That is an insufficient explanation. The case is about Amaral's right to say what he likes and not about the guilt or innocence of The McCanns.
I am talking about the annulment request, the rest of the case is history.
-
The guilt or innocence of the McCanns was brought up by Duarte in her appeal to the Supreme Court.
But she wasn't asking for a verdict on that.
-
The judges say he can say what he likes provided the McCanns were not innocent, and there was insufficient evidence of innocence to say they were innocent. It is complex.
Please don't try to explain it in a single sentence which lacks any factual basis.
-
Basically what the Supreme Judges are saying is - it doesn't matter if the McCanns were innocent or not, Amaral had the right to say they covered up the death of their daughter, and in writing about his opinion in a best selling book he did them no harm, or any harm that he did do them was of secondary importance to his right to an opinion. Furthermore he has the right to profit from his opinion and the right to sue the McCanns for daring to bring a case against him in the first place, even if the McCanns had no hand whatsoever in covering up Madeleine's death.
I'm sure that's all very just.
-
Basically what the Supreme Judges are saying is - it doesn't matter if the McCanns were innocent or not, Amaral had the right to say they covered up the death of their daughter, and in writing about his opinion in a best selling book he did them no harm, or any harm that he did do them was of secondary importance to his right to an opinion. Furthermore he has the right to profit from his opinion and the right to sue the McCanns for daring to bring a case against him in the first place, even if the McCanns had no hand whatsoever in covering up Madeleine's death.
I'm sure that's all very just.
But his opinion doesn't actually count, does it.
-
But she wasn't asking for a verdict on that.
She said;
Page 40
It shakes also the honour, the good name and the image of any innocent person, and already cleared before through the filing dispatch of a criminal investigation (the conclusion of which is that there is no element of proof nor evidence that the person committed any crime),
The judges reply was that the archiving dispatch didn't 'clear' the McCanns.
-
She said;
Page 40
It shakes also the honour, the good name and the image of any innocent person, and already cleared before through the filing dispatch of a criminal investigation (the conclusion of which is that there is no element of proof nor evidence that the person committed any crime),
The judges reply was that the archiving dispatch didn't 'clear' the McCanns.
But it didn't find them guilty either.
-
A very clear and simple explanation Slarti. Why so many (including, it seems, the McCanns and their libel lawyers) cannot understand escapes me. I suppose it could be that they don't want to understand.
As you mistakenly introduced the argument from ignorance and then made a rambling post it is you who is mistaken and refuse to accept reality
The SC talks of evidence of innocence
The words are NOT in quotes so the SC are legitimising them
The question is not one of innocence but one of evidence of innocence
You and others can't see the subtle difference
Whether the court will admit to this glaring error is another question
-
But it didn't find them guilty either.
It's not the job of a prosecutor to declare anyone guilty (or not guilty); that's the job of the courts. The public prosecutor's job is to examine the evidence collected, decide if a crime has been committed and if there's sufficient evidence to charge anyone. In this case there was not sufficient evidence, so the case was archived.
-
It's not the job of a prosecutor to declare anyone guilty (or not guilty); that's the job of the courts. The public prosecutor's job is to examine the evidence collected, decide if a crime has been committed and if there's sufficient evidence to charge anyone. In this case there was not sufficient evidence, so the case was archived.
Nor did the courts who passed judgement on the libel case find them guilty.
-
As you mistakenly introduced the argument from ignorance and then made a rambling post it is you who is mistaken and refuse to accept reality
The SC talks of evidence of innocence
The words are NOT in quotes so the SC are legitimising them
The question is not one of innocence but one of evidence of innocence
You and others can't see the subtle difference
Whether the court will admit to this glaring error is another question
They discuss it only in answer to Duarte, who argued that the archiving dispatch cleared the McCanns. They replied that it didn't, it can't be used as evidence of innocence;
Page 70
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.
That seems to me quite clear and unambiguous.
-
It's not the job of a prosecutor to declare anyone guilty (or not guilty); that's the job of the courts. The public prosecutor's job is to examine the evidence collected, decide if a crime has been committed and if there's sufficient evidence to charge anyone. In this case there was not sufficient evidence, so the case was archived.
And the fact they do not have the evidence to charge them would suggest they are innocent
-
Please don't try to explain it in a single sentence which lacks any factual basis.
That is my opinion of it.
-
Nor did the courts who passed judgement on the libel case find them guilty.
That is not the remit of a court in a civil case.
-
That is not the remit of a court in a civil case.
They aren't very good at Defamation either. Or The Presumption of Innocence. I wonder if they understand The Constitution.
-
Nor did the courts who passed judgement on the libel case find them guilty.
Why would they? The question they were answering was whether Amaral was entitled to express his opinion or not.
-
They discuss it only in answer to Duarte, who argued that the archiving dispatch cleared the McCanns. They replied that it didn't, it can't be used as evidence of innocence;
Page 70
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.
That seems to me quite clear and unambiguous.
Evidence of innocence is not in quotation marks so can be taken as the judges own words
It is quite clear the judges are wrong
-
And the fact they do not have the evidence to charge them would suggest they are innocent
How must the prosecution team work? They have to find sufficient evidence to convince a jury or a judge that an innocent person has committed the crime and the jury finds the innocent person guilty.
We must always presume that a person is innocent till the jury finds them guilty.
-
The prosecutors themselves said that the McCanns could not be expected to foresee that one of their children might be abducted:
The parents could not foresee that in the resort that they chose to spend a brief holiday, they could place the life of any of their children in danger, nor was that demanded from them: it was located in a peaceful area, where most of the residents are foreign citizens of the same nationality and without any known history of this type of criminality.
The parents didn't even represent the realisation of the fact, they trusted that everything would go well, as it had gone on the previous evenings, thus not equating, nor was it demanded from them, the possibility of the occurrence of an abduction of any of the children that were in their respective apartments.
Ally that to the fact that Operation Grange are treating Madeleine's abduction as if it had occurred in the UK, and what chance should Amaral have?
Is he still rattling around in Switzerland?
-
All, please note this thread is about the annulment request. Discussion on the SC judgement should take place on the appropriate thread, not this one. Off topic posts will be removed.
-
Evidence of innocence is not in quotation marks so can be taken as the judges own words
It is quite clear the judges are wrong
It is quite clear to me that the McCanns are wrong. The role of a public prosecutor is to decide if enough evidence has been collected to mount a prosecution. In this case there wasn't enough evidence so the case was shelved. It is not their role to decide on innocence or guilt. Duarte got that wrong, as the judges pointed out.
-
It is quite clear to me that the McCanns are wrong. The role of a public prosecutor is to decide if enough evidence has been collected to mount a prosecution. In this case there wasn't enough evidence so the case was shelved. It is not their role to decide on innocence or guilt. Duarte got that wrong, as the judges pointed out.
Is this your fourth or fifth change of tack after the last one failed
-
Application to have Judgement Invalidated (Arguição de Nulidade do Acórdão)
Below is a copy of the McCann's request for annulment of the Supreme Court´s decision, filed by the couple´s lawyer on the 16th of February, 2017. We understand that the filing of this appeal has a suspensive effect on the Supreme Court´s ruling.
The request alleges that the Supreme Court´s decision "lacks a foundation (...) in stating that one cannot invoke the principle of presumption of innocence in order to restrict the right to freedom of expression, because it is based on the erroneous presumption that the archiving of the criminal investigation 'was determined because it was not possible for the Public Ministry to obtain enough indications of the practice of crimes by the appellants'".
In case you are struggling with the legalese (we do), here is what we understand to be the reasoning behind the request:
1. The McCanns have invoked the principle of presumption of innocence to justify the restrictions they want imposed on Dr. Amaral's freedom of expression;
2. The Supreme Court stated, in its ruling, that the above is no argument because the McCanns were not considered innocent by the investigation and the case was archived because not enough evidence was found to charge them.
3. The McCanns, because they believe the above argument is false, request for the Supreme Court's decision to be nullified/invalidated.
Translation and Notes courtesy Anne Guedes.
Page 01
February 16, 2017
SUPREME COURT OF JUSTICE
Section 1
Case No. 1.454 / 09.5TVLSB.L1.S1
Your Excellency Doctor Judge Counselor Rapporteur,
KATE MARIE HEALY MCCANN and GERALD PATRICK MCCANN, appellants identified in the case minutes, having been notified of the entire content of the STJ 1st Section's ruling, which redounded on the matter of the appeal for review, come, under the terms and for the purposes of the provisions of articles 615-1(b, c) and 4-1 and 666 of the Code of Civil Procedure, to argue for the assembly the
NULLITY OF THE RULING
What they do, on the following grounds:
The factual assumptions - which are supposed to be valid - of the logical argumentation set out in the ruling now object of complaint contradict and constitute a sense of reason opposite to that which is inferred from the factual ground of the decision,
Note-1:
Article 615 – Causes of Nullity of the Sentence
1 – The sentence is null when :
b) It does not specify the factual and legal grounds that justify the decision.
c) The grounds are in opposition to the decision or there is some ambiguity or obscurity that turns the decision unintelligible.
4 - The nullities mentioned in points b) to e) of paragraph 1 can only be argued before the court that delivered the sentence if this one does not admit ordinary appeal, and if it does the appeal can be based on any of these nullities.
Article 666 - Vices and Reform of the Ruling
1 - The provisions of articles 613 to 617 are applicable to the 2nd instance, but the ruling is still null and void when it is drawn against the unsuccessful party or without the necessary salary.
2 - The rectification or amendment of the judgment, as well as the plea of nullity, shall be decided in a conference.
Page 02
And this in particular as regards the conclusive epitome on the protection of the rights of the appellants to their good name and reputation, and their intimate relationship with the presumption of innocence or, if we wish to be more rigorous, the status of innocence that they enjoy.
Now,
It is established in the minutes, under point 15 of the factual matter, that, in particular :
(...)
“It appears that the non involvement of the arguidos, the parents of Madeleine McCann, stems from the objective circumstances of them not being inside the apartment when Madeleine disappeared, from the normal behaviour that they displayed until said disappearance and afterwards, as can be amply concluded from witness statements, from the telephone communications analysis and also from the forensics' conclusions, namely the reports from the (Birmingham) Forensic Science Service (FSS) and from the National Institute for Legal Medicine.
To this should be added that in fact none of the clues that led to their constitution as “arguidos" was later confirmed or consolidated.
Page 03
Let's judge it : the information concerning a previous alert of the media before the police was not confirmed, the residues that were marked by the dogs were not corroborated in laboratory, and the initial indications from the above transcribed email (1) better examined afterwards, that ended up appearing to be inconclusive.
(...)
Tests and analyses were performed in two of the most prestigious and credentialed institutions - the National Institute for Legal Medicine and the British Forensic Science Service -, their final results having neither positively evaluated the collected residues nor corroborated the dogs' alerts.
(...) (2)
it was not possible to obtain any evidence that would allow for a average man, enlightened by criteria of logics, of norms and of the general rules of experience,
Note-2: The email on the preliminary DNA analysis by the FSS of the samples collected in the car hired by the Mcs.
Note-3 : (...) is substituted to "In spite of all this" in the original document (the filing order)
Page 04
to formulate any lucid, sensate, serious and honest conclusion about the circumstances under which the child was removed from the apartment (whether dead or alive, whether killed in a neglectful homicide or an intended homicide, whether the victim of a targeted or opportunistic abduction), nor even to produce a consistent prognosis about her destiny and inclusively – and that's the most dramatic - to establish whether she is still alive or, as it seems the more likely, she is dead.
(...)
Therefore, everything having been examined, analysed and duly pondered, considering what is left exposed, we determine
(...)
the archiving of the autos concerning the (by lawyer) assisted witnesses Gerald Patrick McCann and Kate Marie Healy, due to the lack of clues of their practising any crime” (cf. Also, alinea AQ) of the established facts in the normalizing dispatch of the process).
The documentary proof that supported the determination of this fact as proved, even in the condensation phase of the proceedings, is, as a result, the order to file the aforementioned criminal investigation, together with the minutes on paper or in digital form.
Page 05
In the operative part of this order, one can read, immediately after the sentence "because there is no evidence that they have committed any crime", the express mention of article 277-1 of the CPP, through the concrete expression "in accordance with the provisions of Article 277-1 of the CPP".
In the light of this, it seems to the appellants that this STJ's Section can not lightly come to say in the ruling now matter of complaint, necessarily without falling (3) into a conspicuous contradiction of grounds, that the archival in question "was determined since it had not been possible for the Public Ministry to obtain sufficient evidence of the commission of crimes by the appellants (cf. Quoted article 277-2)".
Just as (this STJ's Section) could not assert that it is not acceptable to assimilate the aforementioned filing order to a verified proof of innocence, precisely because the order to which that court refers,
Note-4
Article 277 - Archiving of the investigation
1 - The Public Ministry shall, by dispatch, close the investigation, as soon as it has gathered sufficient evidence that the crime was not confirmed, that the arguido did not practice it in any way or that the procedure is legally inadmissible
Note-5
this is a literal translation, but the appropriate syntax for what is meant is "sem necessariamente cair...", i.e without falling necessarily...
Note-6
Article 277 - Archiving of the investigation
2. The investigation shall also be closed if it had not been possible for the Public Ministry to obtain sufficient evidence confirming the crime or who were the authors.
Page 06
as a presupposition of the conclusion it reached, does not unexist (4) uttered under article 277-2 of the CPP.
As far as the appellants are aware of, the archiving at stake was carried out, in the course of the investigation, because sufficient proof had been gathered that the then arguidos did not commit any facts of a criminal relevance and in any way whatsoever, this conclusion substantiating an archiving for factual reasons,
A point that should have always meant inside the decision taken by this STJ
that, in this investigation, exists the necessary certainty that the persons then arguidos did not participate objectively, subjectively and individually in its (5) practice, whether as perpetrators or only as accomplices.
On the other hand,
Note-7
read “exists”. La Bruyère wrote that "Whatever we conceive well we express clearly, and words flow with ease”. It seems that here things aren’t as well conceived as they should to be understandable. Double negations are traps even for grammarians. As well read "could not assert that it is not acceptable” as “could not assert that it is unthinkable”
Note-8 this possessive adjective lacks syntaxic representation. One can guess that it refers to the undetermined crime MMC was victim of.
Page 07
Furthermore the appellants find that the conclusion reached in the ruling under complaint is lacking factual ground concerning the fact that the alluded filing decision is liable to be amended by various means, which is done with a view to removing from the minutes the application of the presumption of innocence principle.
However, the archiving decision, which is proven in the minutes, produces important preclusive legal effects, which are protected by the procedural law, having the force of res judicata, as, moreover, is foreseen in the schemes established by articles 279-1, 282-3 and 449-2 of the CPP.
That is to say, therefore, that the filing order uttered according to article 277-1 of the CPP, after the deadline of article 278 of the same legal compendium, is res judicata (6) and is only subject to review according to the terms of articles 279 and 449-2 of the CPP.
That is to say, the invalidation of the grounds invoked by the Public Ministry's office in the filing order, made under the provisions of article 277-1 of the CPP, can only be based on new facts or elements of evidence unknown by the Public Ministry at the investigation’s time and that, therefore,
Note-9
Article 279 - Reopening of the investigation
1. Once the period referred to in the previous article has expired, the investigation may be reopened only if new evidence appears to invalidate the grounds invoked by the Public Ministry in the filing order.
Article 282 - Duration and effects of suspension
3 - If the arguido complies with the injunctions and rules of behaviour, the Public Ministry closes the processes that cannot be reopened.
Article 449 - Reasons and admissibility of the review
2 - For the purpose of the provisions of the preceding paragraph, the dispatch terminating the process shall be equated with the sentence (made res judicata).
Note-10
Article 278 - Hierarchical intervention
1 - Within a period of 20 days from the date on which the opening of the investigation can no longer be requested, the immediate superior of the Public Ministry magistrate may, on his own initiative or at the request of the assistant or of the complainant capable of being constituted assistant, determine that an indictment is made or that the investigations continue, indicating, in this case, the steps to be taken and the deadline for compliance.
2 - The assistant and the complainant able to become an assistant may, if they choose not to request the opening of the instruction, raise the hierarchical intervention, under the previous number, within the period provided for that request.
Note-11
Read “only new pertinent elements will be able to cast doubt upon the grounds invoked by the PM".
Page 08
could not be presented and produced in order to be assessed and pondered in the decision.
However, inside the factual matter established as proved in the minutes, there is no fact capable of constituting ground for the review or reopening of the investigation in question, there is thus no basis for the finding advanced by the court to the effect that the principle of innocence isn’t able to be alluded to in the minutes to restrict the right to freedom of expression, because of the, erroneous, starting assumption that the archiving of the criminal investigation "was determined by the fact that the PM had not been able to obtain sufficient evidence of the commission of crimes by the appellants". (7)
Therefore,
we request that Your Excellencies deign : (8)
a) to hear the present nullity imputation,
b) to remedy the flaws of inconsistency between the factual basis and the conclusions reached in the ruling and the flaws of failure of ground, as stated above,
Note-12
The complexity of the filing order, erroneously known as the “AG Report”, is likely related to the difficult task the Public Ministry was facing. And one has to admit that the dispatch is not written as the judges of the STJ remarkably write their rulings. Mr Murat’s arguido status, twice extended, required to put an end to the criminal investigation (the status of arguidos can’t be removed before the end of that investigation phase).
Furthermore the acquaintances of the MCs rejected the request of the Prosecutor to go back to PDL in order to be part in a reconstitution of the 3rd of May events, though the Prosecutor clearly warned that it was the last chance for boosting the rather stagnant criminal investigation. These are the significant circumstances involving the writing of the filing order. One has to acknowledge an important point however : the Prosecutors foresaw that their constrained decision, as it couldn’t exonerate the MCs, the crime being undetermined, would reflect the “major damage done to the MCs” by the refusal of the group to collaborate with the PJ.
Note-13 Note that the complaint starts addressing to Your Excellency (singular)
Page 09
All with legal consequences.
Attached is a document proving that justice fees were paid. (9)
Notification concerning this complaint was sent to the opposite parties by email on 16.02.2017
Note-14: This document was published on PJGA on March 18, but Gonçalo Amaral legal team is supposed to have been emailed it on February 16. The referred receipt of justice fees isn’t appended.
There is clearly no 'belief' about it, is there?
The Prosecutors have stated that the McCanns could not be expected to forsee an abduction, (having, first, dismissed any suggestion of 'neglect').
The fact that the prosecutors expressly and directly dismissed 'neglect' tells its own story.
If the prosecutors entertained, even hypothetically, the notion that the McCanns might be guilty of something worse, but had accorded the McCanns 'benefit of doubt', (that the notion of more serious criminal conduct might be mistaken) very obviously the prosecutors would not have gone out of their way to dismiss (expressly and directly) 'neglect'.
-
Is this your fourth or fifth change of tack after the last one failed
I seem to have failed to enlighten you, that's true. That doesn't make you right and me wrong, though. The judges will no doubt explain the position to both of us in due course.
-
It is quite clear to me that the McCanns are wrong. The role of a public prosecutor is to decide if enough evidence has been collected to mount a prosecution. In this case there wasn't enough evidence so the case was shelved. It is not their role to decide on innocence or guilt. Duarte got that wrong, as the judges pointed out.
Omit the word 'enough' from your second sentence and you would be bang-on right, up to the end of that sentence.
Prosecutors (in any country) have the role of deciding whether there is sufficient evidence to advance a case by pressing charges and bringing proceedings to trial.
It's true that sometimes they decide there are insufficent grounds to press charges and don't pursue a prosecution.
Here, I have already made the point, and I repeat, the prosecutors would not have gone out of their way to dismiss 'neglect' had they accorded the McCanns 'technical benefit of the doubt'.
Nor would they have specified their grounds for dismissing a notion of anything more serious.
-
I seem to have failed to enlighten you, that's true. That doesn't make you right and me wrong, though. The judges will no doubt explain the position to both of us in due course.
You need, yourself, to be 'enlightened' before you can enlighten others.
-
I imagine the SC will do all the enlightening that is required.
-
I seem to have failed to enlighten you, that's true. That doesn't make you right and me wrong, though. The judges will no doubt explain the position to both of us in due course.
I'm awaiting the result of the success or otherwise of the McCann request for an annulment with great interest and not only from a partisan viewpoint.
Despite the oft stated belief that there was no leave to appeal following a Supreme Court Ruling ... it is now evident that was wrong and that such rulings may be open to question in appropriate circumstances.
Judges cannot be seen to be allowed to overturn the provisions of a written Constitution in a parliamentary democracy.
What on earth fuelled the arrogance of these three individuals to assume that they would be allowed to do just that?
-
I imagine the SC will do all the enlightening that is required.
Aren't we looking forward to it?
Mr. Hobbs : " A bulb this weak…you can't even call it a light. It's a dark! You turn that thing on in the middle of the day and the whole room goes black. "
&%+((£
-
I'm awaiting the result of the success or otherwise of the McCann request for an annulment with great interest and not only from a partisan viewpoint.
Despite the oft stated belief that there was no leave to appeal following a Supreme Court Ruling ... it is now evident that was wrong and that such rulings may be open to question in appropriate circumstances.
Judges cannot be seen to be allowed to overturn the provisions of a written Constitution in a parliamentary democracy.
What on earth fuelled the arrogance of these three individuals to assume that they would be allowed to do just that?
What is presumptious, is that you think you know Portuguese Law , more than three experienced Portuguese Judges.
-
What is presumptious, is that you think you know Portuguese Law , more than three experienced Portuguese Judges.
Back in the days of yore [or my even] when we wuz doin' "A" levels in sciences, maths and stuff we fought we had done well to spot what the question was.
Maybe some folk need to work out what the question is before trying to answer ....................... 8(>((
-
Back in the days of yore [or my even] when we wuz doin' "A" levels in sciences, maths and stuff we fought we had done well to spot what the question was.
Maybe some folk need to work out what the question is before trying to answer ....................... 8(>((
That Alice is a wise adage.
-
I'm awaiting the result of the success or otherwise of the McCann request for an annulment with great interest and not only from a partisan viewpoint.
Despite the oft stated belief that there was no leave to appeal following a Supreme Court Ruling ... it is now evident that was wrong and that such rulings may be open to question in appropriate circumstances.
Judges cannot be seen to be allowed to overturn the provisions of a written Constitution in a parliamentary democracy.
What on earth fuelled the arrogance of these three individuals to assume that they would be allowed to do just that?
My! Could you explain how the judges overturned 'the provisions of a written Constitution in a parliamentary democracy'? That would be most interesting.
-
It is quite clear to me that the McCanns are wrong. The role of a public prosecutor is to decide if enough evidence has been collected to mount a prosecution. In this case there wasn't enough evidence so the case was shelved. It is not their role to decide on innocence or guilt. Duarte got that wrong, as the judges pointed out.
The annulment would depend on the Judges getting that wrong.
-
I imagine the SC will do all the enlightening that is required.
Portugal's future reputation depends on it.