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

[G-Unit]

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.

[slartibartfast]

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.

[Robittybob1]

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.

[slartibartfast]

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.

[Eleanor]

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.

[Robittybob1]

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.

[slartibartfast]

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.

[slartibartfast]

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.

[Robittybob1]

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.

[G-Unit]

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.

[Eleanor]

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.

[G-Unit]

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.

[Robittybob1]

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.

[slartibartfast]

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.

[Eleanor]

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.