McCanns appeal to the European Court of Human Rights

[Robittybob1]

I think the way it way it was used in the, archiving report is a good indication that in that context it was meant to mean evidence

What makes you think that?  "I think the way it way it was used in the, archiving report is a good indication that in that context it was meant to mean evidence"

[Mr Gray]

What makes you think that?  "I think the way it way it was used in the, archiving report is a good indication that in that context it was meant to mean evidence"

I think I've already explained that... The AR states.... none of the indications used to make the McCann's arguidos.... As it needs evidence to make the McCann's arguidos it looks, as though.. Indications... Is being used instead of the word evidence

[Carana]

I can't find it now, but I remember reading a quote from Murat's lawyer about the archiving of the investigation. Asked if they were pleased his reply was they would wait and see under what conditions it was archived first. That remark makes more sense now. Obviously he would want 277/1 for his client. As the prosecutor mentioned no doubts about Murat, 277/1 was probably correct for him.

The question is, could a case be archived under two different Articles? Even if it could there would have been a huge fuss imo when people realised why the prosecutor had reached different conclusions about the arguidos. Just a thought.

Interesting point.

I'm not sure what the process would have been if there had been different rulings for the McCanns and Murat. On the other hand, he decided that 277/1 applied to both, so the issue is hypothetical in this case, IMO. And it appears that it was indeed reopened under that same category.

Murat was constituted as an arguido much later (whether that was compulsory or whether he requested it), but AFAIK, that would have been to questions that the UK side wanted to clarify. At the time, there was no provision for that kind of situation in the CPP (yes, I did check), and it appears that that status no longer applies, which wouldn't have been the case if the reason had been from the PT side.

Normally, once you have arguido status, that's it - you're lumped with it until the prosecutor, in the absence of justified objections requiring further investigation, decides to charge someone or archive the inquiry.

[Robittybob1]

I think I've already explained that... The AR states.... none of the indications used to make the McCann's arguidos.... As it needs evidence to make the McCann's arguidos it looks, as though.. Indications... Is being used instead of the word evidence

I'm not an expert but they don't need evidence to make arguidos but just reasons.

[Carana]

I think I've already explained that... The AR states.... none of the indications used to make the McCann's arguidos.... As it needs evidence to make the McCann's arguidos it looks, as though.. Indications... Is being used instead of the word evidence

At the time it only required "suspicion". The version after that specified "founded suspicion".

To be fair, the PJ had the woof videos. IMO, that constituted "evidence" but only of the fact that the dogs alerted in locations associated with them.

However, it was in reality only ever an indication (IMO) as, to this day, there is no definitive answer as to what they actually alerted to as no concrete, physical, evidence was ever found, nor has it ever been clarified what other substances Eddie could have reacted to in order to eliminate those possibilities, nor was the provenance of the furniture ever verified, nor were the post-disappearance guests (4 lots of people) or other people entering the flat questioned as to a possible incident while they were there.

As to the car, it was meaningless. Unless I'm mistaken, I think I found (and posted) some time back that what Keela alerted to didn't appear to have even been the soup sample.

At the time, it was all the PJ had to go on and they ran with it, presumably in the hope of a confession.

[Carana]

I'm not an expert but they don't need evidence to make arguidos but just reasons.

These days it's called "founded suspicion". An arguido has the right to be informed of whatever the PJ consider to be "evidence".

From the police side, not necessarily just in PT, I can understand that they may use anything they find to confront their suspect with, even if they're unsure themselves, as a bluff tactic.

[Mr Gray]

I'm not an expert but they don't need evidence to make arguidos but just reasons.

They listed the indications.... Including the dog alerts... I'm quite happy to accept they are not evidence

[G-Unit]

Are you suggesting that translation  might be an issue? ;)

The only one I've raised was in response Davel's belief that indício equalled evidence, and we disagree on that.
If there's an issue over the meaning of a word, I'm happy to check it out, as anyone else could. Lucky she didn't disappear in Mongolia.

Otherwise, in terms of the general substance, no, I don't see the grounds for "serious reservations" as to an abduction. I found it to be 50/50, but with nothing of relevance to implicate the parents.

Have you found why they said that it couldn't have been reopened under 277/1 yet?

I think knowledge of Portuguese law and the language gives the Judges an advantage over people who don't know a lot about those things. Especially people who think high court judges make things up. Even if they do, they would  be utter and complete fools to do that in this case.

Various books by legal experts have been quoted throughout this case. None of them can be checked by me, I don't understand Portuguese. I don't suppose they made that up either though.

There may be nothing of relevance to implicate the parents, but that's not what's required under 277/1, this is;

In fact, it does not appear anywhere in the order, that the collected evidence was sufficient to confirm that no crime was committed or that the then arguidos (here appellants) did not commit it in any sort of way (cf. quoted article 277-1).
http://www.gerrymccannsblogs.co.uk/STJ_21_03_2017_Rejected.htm

[Mr Gray]

I think knowledge of Portuguese law and the language gives the Judges an advantage over people who don't know a lot about those things. Especially people who think high court judges make things up. Even if they do, they would  be utter and complete fools to do that in this case.

Various books by legal experts have been quoted throughout this case. None of them can be checked by me, I don't understand Portuguese. I don't suppose they made that up either though.

There may be nothing of relevance to implicate the parents, but that's not what's required under 277/1, this is;

In fact, it does not appear anywhere in the order, that the collected evidence was sufficient to confirm that no crime was committed or that the then arguidos (here appellants) did not commit it in any sort of way (cf. quoted article 277-1).
http://www.gerrymccannsblogs.co.uk/STJ_21_03_2017_Rejected.htm

There is nothing in the archiving report that casts serious doubts on abduction... That is a fact


It's actually worse than that... The judges claim that in the archive report serious reservations are raised to abduction... That simply is not true

[Carana]

I think knowledge of Portuguese law and the language gives the Judges an advantage over people who don't know a lot about those things. Especially people who think high court judges make things up. Even if they do, they would  be utter and complete fools to do that in this case.

Various books by legal experts have been quoted throughout this case. None of them can be checked by me, I don't understand Portuguese. I don't suppose they made that up either though.

There may be nothing of relevance to implicate the parents, but that's not what's required under 277/1, this is;

In fact, it does not appear anywhere in the order, that the collected evidence was sufficient to confirm that no crime was committed or that the then arguidos (here appellants) did not commit it in any sort of way (cf. quoted article 277-1).
http://www.gerrymccannsblogs.co.uk/STJ_21_03_2017_Rejected.htm

I have never claimed to be an expert in either Portuguese, let alone Portuguese law. I can understand CdM articles, which really doesn't require an extensive vocabulary, and I've spent time examining changes in PT legislation over time.

Obviously, the venerable SC judges are better qualified than any of us to express their professional opinion. However, it might have been easier to understand if they'd explained exactly what led them to that opinion, and why the case appears to have been reopened under the sub-article that they'd said couldn't happen.

For the moment, I can't make any sense of it, unless you've found an explanation.

[Carana]

The archiving report is online for us all to read...both in the original portuguese and the english translation...there is no mention of serious reservations of abduction...fact

The wording of what G-Unit put in bold in a previous post seems ambigious to me.
even in the filing dispatch serious reservations are raised as to the likelihood of the allegation that Madeleine had been abducted,

IMO, that requires finding how it was phrased in the original, as it could either mean that the prosecutor, and the deput,  had serious reservations themselves (which I can't find), or that the SC judges did upon reading the summary.

Does anyone care to pinpoint that point in the original? It might help to work out what was meant.

[Mr Gray]

The wording of what G-Unit put in bold in a previous post seems ambigious to me.
even in the filing dispatch serious reservations are raised as to the likelihood of the allegation that Madeleine had been abducted,

IMO, that requires finding how it was phrased in the original, as it could either mean that the prosecutor, and the deput,  had serious reservations themselves (which I can't find), or that the SC judges did upon reading the summary.

Does anyone care to pinpoint that point in the original? It might help to work out what was meant.

it waw amaral who had serious reservations about abduction....not the archiving report...were the judges confused

[G-Unit]

I have never claimed to be an expert in either Portuguese, let alone Portuguese law. I can understand CdM articles, which really doesn't require an extensive vocabulary, and I've spent time examining changes in PT legislation over time.

Obviously, the venerable SC judges are better qualified than any of us to express their professional opinion. However, it might have been easier to understand if they'd explained exactly what led them to that opinion, and why the case appears to have been reopened under the sub-article that they'd said couldn't happen.

For the moment, I can't make any sense of it, unless you've found an explanation.

The case was reopened under 279/1, not 277/1, wasn't it?

   
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.
http://www.gerrymccannsblogs.co.uk/Annulment_request.htm

[Carana]

The case was reopened under 279/1, not 277/1, wasn't it?

   
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.
http://www.gerrymccannsblogs.co.uk/Annulment_request.htm

AFAIK, 279/1  would seem to be most likely re the reopiening.

The discussion was about which point in the article it had been archived under: 277/1 or  /2. And why the SC had apparently opined that it couldn't have been opened under 277/1, when seemingly it already had been 3 years previously.

Perhaps I'm having a "senior moment", but for the moment I really don't understand.

[misty]

AFAIK, 279/1  would seem to be most likely re the reopiening.

The discussion was about which point in the article it had been archived under: 277/1 or  /2. And why the SC had apparently opined that it couldn't have been opened under 277/1, when seemingly it already had been 3 years previously.

Perhaps I'm having a "senior moment", but for the moment I really don't understand.

Would it have been an offence in Portugal for Amaral to have published his opinion of the investigation if the McCanns were still under suspicion by the judiciary? (277/2)