McCanns seek to have Supreme Court judgement annulled in libel damages case.

[Mr Gray]

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

[G-Unit]

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.

[G-Unit]

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?

[Mr Gray]

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

[misty]

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.

[Alfie]

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?

[slartibartfast]

all true....you must be carp at maths.....LOL

You let us believe you were working as a medic?

[slartibartfast]

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.

[slartibartfast]

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.

[Robittybob1]

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?

[Robittybob1]

"McCann's file an annulment request following Supreme Court's decision."  Great news. 

[misty]

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.

[Robittybob1]

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.

[misty]

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.

[ShiningInLuz]

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?