Dismissed
http://www.stj.pt/ficheiros/tabelas/Decididas/Civeis/1s-2017-03-21.pdf
Interesting!
Well that was totally unexpected.
just seen elsewhereDoes the case number match the annulment process? 1454/09.5TVLSB.L1.S1 is the number on the spreadsheet.
http://www.stj.pt/ficheiros/tabelas/Decididas/Civeis/1s-2017-03-21.pdf
Appears that the SC has given their decision - rejected
(bottom of second page)
Does the case number match the annulment process? 1454/09.5TVLSB.L1.S1 is the number on the spreadsheet.
Case No. 1.454 / 09.5TVLSB.L1.S1 from the OP That might just be the original case file number originating from the process started in 2009?
How many cases involving Kate Marie Healy, Gerald Patrick McCann and Goncalo Amaral do believe are to be heard by the SC on 21.03.2017?There could have been more than one attempt at introducing the complaint and the maybe the first one was rejected.
The complaintiswas the only one outstanding
There could have been more than one attempt at introducing the complaint and the maybe the first one was rejected.
There could have befen more than one attempt at introducing the complaint and the maybe the first one was rejected.
Really ?
Where did you get that idea from.
It was the last chance saloon.
Um....there's still the ECHR....by which time the investigation may well have produced some...unexpected....results.
A long backlog in cases in the ECHR.
As to the investigation........
There could have been more than one attempt at introducing the complaint and the maybe the first one was rejected.Yeah! right Nobby riiiiight.
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?
Time for the Mccanns to pay up.
No more delays.
Probability of success, even getting their case heard in Portugal with the E.C.H.R. , minimal.
Time for the Mccanns to pay up.the case with the ECHR will not be heard in Portugal
No more delays.
Probability of success, even getting their case heard in Portugal with the E.C.H.R. , minimal.
The case won't be heard in Portugal
The case probably won't even be heard.
The case probably won't even be heard.
Unfortunately Jassi, some people never know when to stop.I'm sure you give up very easily
I'm sure you give up very easily
Others are more tenacious
This case is over.ECHR cannot overturn the case but can award compensation against the Portuguese government
ECHR will not overturn the case.
The best possible case scenario for the McCanns is that PT law may change in the future and they may get some compensation.
ECHR cannot overturn the case but can award compensation against the Portuguese government
That's what I said.
I wouldn't bank on this if I was you. The Portuguese Justice System is now looking like real shit, and totally devoid of Justice. Have at it, as they may.
Personally, I don't really care anymore. I am just appalled, and nothing to be done. The PJ still have the dregs of the fascists which will only die when the old men die.
The day will come.
But I'll tell you what. No other person will ever fall down some steps of a Police Station, and no one will ever be tortured again to extract a "Confession."
This alone is what Madeleine has done for Portugal. I do most sincerely hope that The McCanns can see this.
It is the best ever.
You said will notDon't really matter squire.
The correct phrase is cannot
' McCann’s “frivolity” complaint rejected.
Gonçalo Amaral’s ‘libel win’ confirmed for 3rd time. '
http://portugalresident.com/mccann%E2%80%99s-%E2%80%9Cfrivolity%E2%80%9D-complaint-rejected-gon%C3%A7alo-amaral%E2%80%99s-%E2%80%98libel-win%E2%80%99-confirmed-for-3rd-time#disqus_thread
Nothing in the UK press yet. &%+((£
Plenty of time yet. They are probably sitting at their whetstones.
amaral said he wuld never let the mcanns win and he is right
amaral said he wuld never let the mcanns win and he is right
It's the courts that will (apparently) never let Kate and Gerry win, even though justice and righteousness is absolutely on their side.
It's the courts that will (apparently) never let Kate and Gerry win, even though justice and righteousness is absolutely on their side.
You have got to be kidding.
Prescient as always, Eleanor.
With such a display of institutionalised intransigence one wonders just how much of the Portuguese reopening of Madeleine's case was merely a smoke screen and how much was a genuine effort to find out what happened to her.
Do you think the PJ are surprised that SY have got nowhere following other leads? At least they've eliminated a lot and maybe that was the point until one remains.
McCanns fail to stop 'not innocent' ruling in Madeleine's disappearance
Mark Saunokonoko
By Mark Saunokonoko
Kate and Gerry McCann were dealt a damaging blow today after a Supreme Court rejected a formal complaint against a ruling which stated they were not innocent in the disappearance of Madeleine.
The McCanns have been engaged in a protracted and expensive eight-year legal battle, using money from the Find Madeleine Fund, to silence a detective who authored a book that claimed they faked their daughter's abduction and covered up her death.
Last month, Portugal's Supreme Court upheld a 2016 ruling that Goncalo Amaral's 2008 book 'The Truth of the Lie' was indeed exercising his legal right to freedom of expression.
READ MORE: McCann's reaction to sniffer dogs in apartment and rental car 'didn't make sense'
READ MORE: Abduction theories blasted as ridiculous; 'Maddie likely dead', crime expert claims
In February's ruling the judges also declared the lifting of Kate and Gerry's 'arguidos' status (a kind of formal suspect), and the 2008 archiving of the criminal investigation into Maddie's disappearance, did not mean they were innocent.
Lawyers for the McCanns, who have steadfastly claimed Maddie was abducted, described the Supreme Court's assertion as "erroneous" and "frivolous". They immediately laid the formal complaint.
Today, Supreme Court judge Dr Jorge Manuel Roque Nogueira threw that complaint out.
Play Video
Dogs specialising in detecting human cadaver and human blood were brought to Portugal in 2007, several months after Maddie vanished.
Amaral oversaw the original investigation into Madeleine's disappearance from the family's holiday apartment on May 3, 2007.
The McCanns were made 'arguidos' in the days following a cadaver and blood dog search that saw alerts made inside the family's holiday apartment and also a rental car Kate and Gerry hired 25 days after Maddie vanished.
The cadaver dog, trained to detect the odour of dead bodies, also registered hits on Maddie's favourite cuddly toy, Cuddle Cat, and two items of Kate's clothing.
Kate McCann, mother of missing Madeleine, holds her daughter's "Cuddle Cat" as she walks out from a mass in a Portuguese beach resort in the southern province of Algarve 10 May 2007.
Kate McCann, mother of missing Madeleine, holds her daughter's "Cuddle Cat" as she walks out from a mass in a Portuguese beach resort in the southern province of Algarve 10 May 2007. Source: AFP
Madeleine Beth McCann has been missing since May 3, 2007 from a holiday apartment in Praia da Luz, Portugal.
Madeleine Beth McCann has been missing since May 3, 2007 from a holiday apartment in Praia da Luz, Portugal. Source: AFP
Amaral was controversially removed from the investigation in October 2007, after he was deemed to have been critical of British police in an interview with a Portuguese newspaper.
The Portuguese detective later wrote a book based on the Madeleine case, and released it three days after the case was officially shelved, which was also when 'arguidos' status was lifted from the McCanns.
Amaral's book theorised Maddie had died in apartment 5A, and her body had been disposed of by Kate and Gerry.
In 2009, the McCanns launched a class action suit against Amaral and won an injunction against his book.
Former Policia Judiciaria detective Goncalo Amaral holds a copy of "Maddie: The Truth about the Lie" at its launch in Lisbon on July 24, 2008. Amaral led the investigation on the McCann case until he was removed from the case.
Former Policia Judiciaria detective Goncalo Amaral holds a copy of "Maddie: The Truth about the Lie" at its launch in Lisbon on July 24, 2008. Amaral led the investigation on the McCann case until he was removed from the case. Source: AFP
However, in October, 2010, that decision was overturned by the Court of Appeal in Lisbon, which ruled the injunction had violated Amaral's freedom of expression.
That judgement set the wheels in motion for a showdown that threatened to financially ruin the ex-police chief.
In April 2015 Amaral was ordered to pay $704,000 plus interest in damages, resulting in the freezing of his assets.
But with the help of donations from his supporters, Amaral challenged the libel ruling and won, at the same time successfully overturning the ban on his book.
The McCanns quickly lodged an appeal with Portugal's Supreme Court, which was rejected this year in February.
Kate and Gerry McCann arrive to the court house in Lisbon on June 16, 2014 for the closing arguments of the McCann couple's libel proceedings against former inspector Goncalo Amaral.
Kate and Gerry McCann arrive to the court house in Lisbon on June 16, 2014 for the closing arguments of the McCann couple's libel proceedings against former inspector Goncalo Amaral. Source: AFP
The 76-page ruling by the Supreme Court stated that no one should infer guilt or innocence on the McCann's based on their judgement.
"It should not be said that the appellants [McCanns] were cleared via the ruling announcing the archiving of the criminal case," according to public court documents.
"In truth, that ruling was not made in virtue of Portugal's Public Prosecution Service having acquired the conviction that the appellants hadn't committed a crime.
"The archiving of the case was determined by the fact that public prosecutors hadn't managed to obtain sufficient evidence of the practice of crimes by the appellants."
Amaral has reportedly authored a second, yet-to-published, book about Madeleine's disappearance.
The McCanns are believed to have one final avenue to challenge today's decision – by lodging an appeal with the European Court of Human Rights.
© Nine Digital Pty Ltd 2017
Read more at http://www.9news.com.au/world/2017/03/22/12/26/kate-gerry-mccann-fail-to-stop-court-ruling-not-innocent-in-madeleine-disappearance#zFPH67tFjpSJCq4t.99
imo it shows how supressed the uk media is compared to our australian media
8@??)(
Well there still appears to be no sign of what happened yesterday in the MSM.
I wonder why, as they reported the Supreme Court Decision rather quickly.
I wonder if they will go to the European Court (European Court of Human Rights, ECHR)?
*&*%£ *&*%£
They would be very foolish to do so. The case is littered with references to human rights laws and judgements. They are taken into account throughout.
Also, the success rate for UK cases is abysmal, and any potential compensation minimal.
Do the McCann's seriously imagine they can take the State of Portugal to court and win ?
*&*%£ *&*%£
They would be very foolish to do so. The case is littered with references to human rights laws and judgements. They are taken into account throughout.
Indeed so ... and the European Laws on defamation enshrined in the Portuguese Republic's Constitution have been totally disregarded by the Portuguese courts.
What price democracy?
Indeed so ... and the European Laws on defamation enshrined in the Portuguese Republic's Constitution have been totally disregarded by the Portuguese courts.
What price democracy?
Two blatant injustices that we know of. There must be many more.
Time to get a grip Brietta and accept the decision.
they never will also amaral has talked about counter sueing the mcanns i hope he doesHe will look low if he does.
Indeed so ... and the European Laws on defamation enshrined in the Portuguese Republic's Constitution have been totally disregarded by the Portuguese courts.
What price democracy?
Time to get a grip Brietta and accept the decision.
To what decision of the Portuguese courts do you refer?
The one recognising torture and punishing the victim?
Or the one recognising the right to honour enjoyed by a dishonourable ex-policeman at the expense of the right to honour of the victims traduced by him?(https://s-media-cache-ak0.pinimg.com/236x/83/93/7c/83937c7f3bcae65432aeb6e75e58f1ac.jpg)In Portugal it seems the scales of justice seem to be a little out of kilter with the European Laws they signed up to without the slightest pretence of compliance.
This is a modern democracy? ... I rather think not.
The judges reached their decisions with references to human rights laws and judgements throughout. Please explain just how you think the judges disregarded the defamation laws. Otherwise you are making unsupported allegations.
Do you really expect judges to reach their decisions by scrutinising the characters of the parties involved and finding for the most 'deserving'? That suggests a grave lack of understanding of how Judicial systems work. I thought each case was judged according to the evidence presented in that case only.
He will look low if he does.
The judges reached their decisions with references to human rights laws and judgements throughout. Please explain just how you think the judges disregarded the defamation laws. Otherwise you are making unsupported allegations.
Do you really expect judges to reach their decisions by scrutinising the characters of the parties involved and finding for the most 'deserving'? That suggests a grave lack of understanding of how Judicial systems work. I thought each case was judged according to the evidence presented in that case only.
I haven't followed the ins and outs of this like you have G - but I have to say that:-
I would not expect Judges to promote virtually as an established fact that 'insufficient evidence' always means that other evidence is definitely around to be found - and completely ignore the possibility that the reason 'insuffiicient evidence' was collected was simply because no other evidence existed to be found in the first place.
I expect judges to make their rulings according to the law of the land and without bias. If you are content that applies to the Portuguese appeal court judges that is your privilege.
My right to freedom of speech regarding what I believe an obvious miscarriage of justice is my privilege.
I haven't followed the ins and outs of this like you have G - but I have to say that:-
I would not expect Judges to promote virtually as an established fact that 'insufficient evidence' always means that other evidence is definitely around to be found - and completely ignore the possibility that the reason 'insuffiicient evidence' was collected was simply because no other evidence existed to be found in the first place.
Did the judges say that though? Please explain how you reached that conclusion?
If you an't or won't explain the basis of your accusations that's your prerogative. I can't see how the Portuguese judges flouted either Portuguese or European law.
Stating that they did without explaining how you reached that conclusion renders your opinion meaningless. The same applies to your accusation of 'bias'. Unfounded allegations in my opinion.
It's the courts that will (apparently) never let Kate and Gerry win, even though justice and righteousness is absolutely on their side.
Did the judges say that though? Please explain how you reached that conclusion?
In an earlier post, one of those in which I laid out my opinion of the judgement and all of which you appear to have missed reading, I quoted " ... none so blind as those who will not see."
Perhaps it is possible you don't recognise yourself in that truism even if others can make their own judgement on that from your posts.
You see. I do you the courtesy of reading the gist of your posts and remember the general content and context ... what a pity you affect not to read mine or if you do without the same retention, if your constant demand for explanation to my train of thought rests on one previous post.
If you have objections, then take it up with the Portuguese Judiciary.Are you trying to be funny Stephen?
I see you don't bother reading Benice's posts with any retention either. Why would either myself or Benice giving you a detailed explanation of our conclusions, which in my opinion are already there to be read and understood, help your understanding?
One should wonder if you really don't understand or if you really do understand ... I think your comprehension skills are just fine though.
Are you trying to be funny Stephen?
Not in the slightest.They don't have to read it so it won't do any good.
If Mccann supporters have a problem with yesterdays rejection, take it to them, rather than typing it on here.
The UK media seem to be lagging behind on the latest libel trial news. I wonder when they're going to catch up?I'm wondering if that notice was just a joke someone was pulling on us. It would be rather easy to set up a fake notice like that.
They don't have to read it so it won't do any good. I'm wondering if that notice was just a joke someone was pulling on us. It would be rather easy to set up a fake notice like that.
The UK media seem to be lagging behind on the latest libel trial news. I wonder when they're going to catch up?
I think Ye Olde Currant Bun just has.
You really should let go of the straw. It's over.
So it has. Where's Ms Kandohla gone I wonder?
https://www.thesun.co.uk/news/3149599/madeleine-mccann-parents-kate-gerry-lose-libel-case-goncalo-amaral-maddie-book/amp
Well there is now a decision by the highest court in a country which is an EU Member State.
What happens next may be interesting.
No comments by Mitchell or their 'friend' today. Speechless at last?No one likes a gloater, just sayin' like.... 8(0(*
No one likes a gloater, just sayin' like.... 8(0(*
A reminder is needed.
The success rate of cases brought to the ECHR by UK citizens is abysmal.
Another reminder.
An appeal to the ECHR has to be accepted, and it has to be precisely drawn up.
Now, taking Portugal to the court, when they have had every opportunity to do so there, stands as a waste of time.
If their case had been more professionally constructed, then they might have succeeded. However, from the initial witness reports, before the first judge, the 'preparation' was extremely amateurish and lacking substance.
I don't think there's anything to worry about. I'm sure the 'learned judges' got their arguments spot on and misinterpreted nothing. They were very careful to support their arguments with reference to all the applicable laws and judgements.
If Madeleine's parents decide to test your argument in the European Court I think your argument will be found to be redundant.And it won't just be responded to by the words "rejected".
It is a matter entirely for them to decide though.
However I am sure that if they do decide to do so, the legal argument and counter argument will be fascinating.
the Portuguese judges have allowed amaral to defame the McCanns which is contrary to European law
they have not respected the right of the McCanns to be presumed innocent which is contrary to European law
They have a good case imo
No matter how many times you state your opinion as fact, the Supreme Court in an EU country has decided otherwise.
my opinion is that the SC have allowed amaral to defame the McCanns....and that is contrary to european law...imo
that means...imo...that the McCanns have a good case to take to Europe...imo
perhaps other posters...including you...should stop stating your opinion as fact
Mine was a fact.
It wasn't
The SC had not decided the McCanns were not defamed
They have decided his right to free speech was more important
I'm sure you will be able to provide the quote saying they were defamed in the SC judgement?
I don't need to
amaral accused them of covering up their daughters death and lying to the police....a multi million pound fraud on the fund...that is defamation...he has been allowed to get away with it
So the SC didn't rule that GA defamed the McCann's, The Court of Davel decided that one.
I'm sure you will be able to provide the quote saying they were defamed in the SC judgement?I'm sure you will be able to provide the quote that they were NOT defamed in the SC judgement.
I'm sure you will be able to provide the quote that they were NOT defamed in the SC judgement.
As we are always told, it was for the McCanns to prove defamation, not GA to prove his innocence.I thought it was never about libel but about damages? wasn't that the sceptic mantra a while ago?
I thought it was never about libel but about damages? wasn't that the sceptic mantra a while ago?
I thought it was never about libel but about damages? wasn't that the sceptic mantra a while ago?
As we are always told, it was for the McCanns to prove defamation, not GA to prove his innocence.That was done in the first case where the McCanns won. It was appealed on the right to freedom of speech. So the argument changed. It isn't about the amount of damage entirely, but they confused the argument again by saying the McCanns had a blemished name already for there was insufficient evidence of innocence.
That was done in the first case where the McCanns won. It was appealed on the right to freedom of speech. So the argument changed. It isn't about the amount of damage entirely, but they confused the argument again by saying the McCanns had a blemished name already for there was insufficient evidence of innocence.
When in criminal law has anyone had to prove themselves innocent? So the judges confused the situation again saying it is a civil case.
So when Amaral said the McCanns disposed of the body of their daughter that wasn't a criminal accusation but a civil one!
Can you accept that as logic?
Why don't you examine the reasons why the case was originally shelved, and the statement, in full, that came with it, Rob ?Don't worry I have read the archiving report. Is that "the statement"? Or are you referring to Tavares' statement? You need to be a bit more specific.
Why don't you examine the reasons why the case was originally shelved, and the statement, in full, that came with it, Rob ?
The first investigation was shelved because there was no indication of any crime by any of the (original) 3 arguidos and all other leads appeared dead.
In fact there was a lack of evidence, per se, of anything.Quite so. Therefore it is entirely defamatory for a former PJ Coordinator to say those things about the McCanns. OK if it really was his opinion he should have sought the evidence to prove it.
Quite so. Therefore it is entirely defamatory for a former PJ Coordinator to say those things about the McCanns. OK if it really was his opinion he should have sought the evidence to prove it.
In fact there was a lack of evidence, per se, of anything.
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.
Lack of evidence is a sceptic-myth the appeal-court judges appear, scandalously, to have swallowed.
Need you be reminded yet again, it was a thesis, and and shared by others.Shared by his mate Tavares (but that should have stayed within the investigation. Tavares report has no factual basis but is just another list of opinion (hunches). The archiving of the case was after the release of the book. So that is no justification for making that public.
Shared by his mate Tavares (but that should have stayed within the investigation. Tavares report has no factual basis but is just another list of opinion (hunches). The archiving of the case was after the release of the book. So that is no justification for making that public.
Shared by his mate Tavares (but that should have stayed within the investigation. Tavares report has no factual basis but is just another list of opinion (hunches). The archiving of the case was after the release of the book. So that is no justification for making that public.
Amaral sold the copyright of the book to the publishers in March 2008, at which time he was still a serving officer. I do not understand how the SC court could keep referencing the final report which had not even been written at that time.Quite so. It is the timing of the release of the book in relation to his role at the time that is important, not that in 2015 he was definitely retired.
It wasn't just two people Rob, and others did not need to know Amaral's thesis, to share a similar belief.These others are only in your imagination Stephen!
Amaral sold the copyright of the book to the publishers in March 2008, at which time he was still a serving officer. I do not understand how the SC court could keep referencing the final report which had not even been written at that time.
The SC judges referred to the archiving dispatch because it was referred to in Duarte's appeal. She brought it up, not them.The whole thing is a house of cards one bit leaning on another but nothing of any substance.
The whole thing is a house of cards one bit leaning on another but nothing of any substance.
The case is over Rob. The McCanns failed to prove their allegations against Amaral and lost the case. Raking over the ashes may comfort those who refuse to accept that fact, but it won't change it.
The case is over Rob. The McCanns failed to prove their allegations against Amaral and lost the case. Raking over the ashes may comfort those who refuse to accept that fact, but it won't change it.
Exactly. It does appear that some people are deluding themselves that the legal process is effectively over.
Whist an attempt could be made to go to the E.C.H.R., that too will be pointless and merely result in more expenditure.
Meanwhile the McCann's have to pay up, and if they don't, the legal action will be directed at them.
The case is over Rob. The McCanns failed to prove their allegations against Amaral and lost the case. Raking over the ashes may comfort those who refuse to accept that fact, but it won't change it.
The SC judges referred to the archiving dispatch because it was referred to in Duarte's appeal. She brought it up, not them.
Was it in the remit of the appeal court judges to include prejudicial opinion relating to a criminal case in a civil court ruling?
Particularly since the criminal case had never had charges laid against anyone nor was ever brought to trial.
Apparently so.
As a result of their ruling that Amaral's freedom of expression outweighed the McCann right to reputation it is my opinion the Portuguese judges abused their position both in law and in common decency.
This was amply demonstrated when in their ruling they engineered a continuation of the arrogance of Amaral the self appointed prosecutor, judge and jury and they too denied the McCanns their right under European law.
In reality what happened as a result of the appeal court judges' interpretations was a demonstration of the classic definition of a kangaroo court in action.
The McCanns were not on trial.
The McCanns have never been on trial.
As far as the content of Amaral's book goes only the interim report presented by a convicted torturer was as far as it went.
The McCanns seem to have been unknowingly on trial.
A criminal trial at that and not the civil action of a defamation appeal court.
Else why the did the appeal court judges redefine the content of the Attorney General's report which formally lifted the McCann and Murat suspect status and call their innocence in a criminal matter into question?
As the tenth anniversary of their daughter's disappearance approaches the McCanns could have expected to be done with having to defend themselves and their search for Madeleine through the courts.
Sadly, that may not prove to be the case.
Was it in the remit of the appeal court judges to include prejudicial opinion relating to a criminal case in a civil court ruling?
Particularly since the criminal case had never had charges laid against anyone nor was ever brought to trial.
Apparently so.
As a result of their ruling that Amaral's freedom of expression outweighed the McCann right to reputation it is my opinion the Portuguese judges abused their position both in law and in common decency.
This was amply demonstrated when in their ruling they engineered a continuation of the arrogance of Amaral the self appointed prosecutor, judge and jury and they too denied the McCanns their right under European law.
In reality what happened as a result of the appeal court judges' interpretations was a demonstration of the classic definition of a kangaroo court in action.
The McCanns were not on trial.
The McCanns have never been on trial.
As far as the content of Amaral's book goes only the interim report presented by a convicted torturer was as far as it went.
The McCanns seem to have been unknowingly on trial.
A criminal trial at that and not the civil action of a defamation appeal court.
Else why the did the appeal court judges redefine the content of the Attorney General's report which formally lifted the McCann and Murat suspect status and call their innocence in a criminal matter into question?
As the tenth anniversary of their daughter's disappearance approaches the McCanns could have expected to be done with having to defend themselves and their search for Madeleine through the courts.
Sadly, that may not prove to be the case.
Given that the prosecutors expressly considered -- and dismissed -- lesser charges of 'neglect', it is clearly plain barking to suppose that they did not, also, dismiss (potentially) more serious charges that might have been brought.
This 'cleared' business is a misnomer.
They were not 'cleared' because they were never charged, and therefore never in need of being 'cleared'.
More accurately, no basis for levelling charges was ever established.
Take it up with the McCann's lawyers; it is they who suggested that the archiving dispatch cleared them.
One wonders why it was brought up,it was never mentioned in the first judgement nor the first appeal,so why bring it to the supreme court.
Desperation? Couldn't think of another argument?You usually are more thoughtful than that. I'm sure it mattered to the McCanns that they had a reputation to uphold.
You usually are more thoughtful than that. I'm sure it mattered to the McCanns that they had a reputation to uphold.
I've never known what it was about. All I know is that it is over, bar the McCanns coughing up the dough.
I understand the argument perfectly. Lack of evidence is not evidence of anything. I also predicted the reaction of the SC to the McCann's complaint. Their claim that investigators found evidence proving them innocent was clearly doomed.
I dispute that they claim there was any proof of innocence....evidence of innocence yes...but not proofWere some full stops missed out?
lack of evidence is evidence of innocence
I dispute that they claim there was any proof of innocence....evidence of innocence yes...but not proof
lack of evidence is evidence of innocence
you did not understand the argument
(https://t2.ftcdn.net/jpg/00/27/56/03/160_F_27560375_hcG5cysCMMTvZgMmgGK7Dvk5lIJMaHR7.jpg)
Sigh ... Amaral never had an ace to play but who could have imagined it was actually a loaded dice he meant.
(https://t2.ftcdn.net/jpg/00/27/56/03/160_F_27560375_hcG5cysCMMTvZgMmgGK7Dvk5lIJMaHR7.jpg)
Sigh ... Amaral never had an ace to play but who could have imagined it was actually a loaded dice he meant.
You usually are more thoughtful than that. I'm sure it mattered to the McCanns that they had a reputation to uphold.
I dispute that they claim there was any proof of innocence....evidence of innocence yes...but not proof
lack of evidence is evidence of innocence
you did not understand the argument
I dispute that they claim there was any proof of innocence....evidence of innocence yes...but not proof
lack of evidence is evidence of innocence
you did not understand the argument
A lack of evidence does not mean it doesn't exist.Could that line ever be used in the court room of a criminal case? "A lack of evidence does not mean it doesn't exist."
I am happy it was dismissed, for now they can go to the ECHR.
I think it has something to do with the annulment application being dismissed.
It would appear it angered some.
I am happy it was dismissed, for now they can go to the ECHR.
I think the dismissal was expected but was a necessary prerequisite to the application to the ECHR
It certainly looks that way. And somebody has to do something about The Portuguese Justice System.
I think the Portuguese Justice System is fine.afaiak its a disgrace
afaiak its a disgrace
I am happy it was dismissed, for now they can go to the ECHR.
It certainly looks that way. And somebody has to do something about The Portuguese Justice System.
Shouldn't that be the Portuguese in-justice system?
One thing to note is that Mr Amaral remains in a dignified silence,no gloating,for him justice has been done and seen to be done.
One thing to note is that Mr Amaral remains in a dignified silence,no gloating,for him justice has been done and seen to be done.No need - he has an army of gloaters to do so on his behalf.
Which supports his statements that his book wasn't written with any malicious intent.I think he will be lying low hoping not to be arrested by the PJ for breaking the Code of Reserve.
I think he will be lying low hoping not to be arrested by the PJ for breaking the Code of Reserve.
I'm afraid not Rob.Was it the one where he criticises the PJ? He won't be back in Portugal anytime soon.
Apparently his next book is due out at the end of April.
Something tells me you will be an avid reader of it.
I think he will be lying low hoping not to be arrested by the PJ for breaking the Code of Reserve.
Was it the one where he criticises the PJ? He won't be back in Portugal anytime soon.
No Rob, a new book.Could be another chance for the McCanns to get their money back.
I think that is dead in the water;Link not working for me. I would think this will be the PJ taking action against Amaral not the McCanns. Especially now that he is flush with capital again.
Madeleine McCann's parents to report Portuguese cop for breach of secrecy
http://www.dailytelegraph.com.au/madeleine-mccanns-parents-to-report-portuguese-cop-for-breach-of-secrecy/news-story/07405dcf5c9a82adea2a910119c60f91?sv=bb223ac845a7fd2514409417b33ef35d
It seems that the supreme court in Portugal throws up some interesting anomalies in relation to human rights and freedom of speech.
The European Court's decision in this particular case has interesting contrasts and parallels I thought, with the McCann v Amaral decision of the Portuguese court and could very well be the reason for "the dignified silence" in which Amaral has received his victory.
That of course and the fact he may be struggling with the manuscript of his next best seller 8(0(* which seems to be taking him longer than the three days in which he rattled out his first.
It is worth noting that it seems to have proved worthwhile for Tavares de Almeida Fernandes to have taken his case to the ECHR.
Members should not bank on it that the same will not be the case for the McCanns should they decide to take their case to a court where they can expect a fair hearing.
EU human rights court condemns Portugal for limiting free speech
IN NEWS · 19-01-2017
Portugal has been found guilty at the European Court of Human Rights and ordered to pay almost €10,000 to the journalist Tavares de Almeida Fernandes regarding an article from 2006 about the Portuguese Supreme Court elections.
In a decision published on Tuesday, the European Court of Human Rights agreed with the former editor of Público newspaper Tavares de Almeida Fernandes, who had been condemned by the Portuguese courts for the article.
Tavares de Almeida Fernandes appealed to the ECHR against having to pay €60,000 to a judge after publishing the article in September 2006 with the headline “The strategy of the spider” about the election of the president of the Supreme Court.
After having lost in various Portuguese courts, Tavares de Almeida Fernandes said that under the terms of article 10 of the Human Rights’ Convention, that the decisions breached his right to free speech and that the €60,000 compensation was “disproportionate and had a negative effect on exercising the freedom of opinion”. TPN/Lusa
http://www.theportugalnews.com/news/eu-human-rights-court-condemns-portugal-for-limiting-free-speech/40808
I think the dismissal was expected but was a necessary prerequisite to the application to the ECHR
So going before the ECHR isn't necessarily a good idea and demonstrates the vagaries of going to law .The wheels of progress turn slowly.
I notice, also, that it took 10 years to get a result.
It was not a necessary prerequisite before making an application to the ECHR. The initial ruling by the SC was enough.
He still seems to be on the losing side. He had to pay 60.000 euros but only got compensated 10,000 euros. Is that how it panned out?
That is irrelevant.Amaral may have to go back to Portugal to claim his rights.
What is, was that the McCann's have lost their legal action in Portugal, and now they have to pay up, or they will; face legal action.
Amaral may have to go back to Portugal to claim his rights.
So going before the ECHR isn't necessarily a good idea and demonstrates the vagaries of going to law .
I notice, also, that it took 10 years to get a result.
Well they have court costs and presumably other bills to pay, including Duarte's, before they consider anything else.
Well they have court costs and presumably other bills to pay, including Duarte's, before they consider anything else.
My favourite too!
it really does sum it up...it shows Brietta has the good manners not to post her opinion as fact....as others on here do
The McCanns have incredible earning power....money is the least of their worries
My favourite too!
I have no interest in what may come into their considerations ... that is entirely a matter for them.
What is evident ... despite protestations from some on this forum ... is that there is neither impediment to an ordinary citizen taking a case to the European Court of Human Rights.
Having done so that there is every chance of success in justice being served.
It is my opinion that the McCanns would have a very strong case to present to the ECHR. Many of the examples rehearsed by members here illustrating very obvious breaches of European Law suffered by them.
If they do decide to follow that route it will be interesting to see how many if any of the arguments made by members on the forum will coincide with the case their lawyers might present.
Was it the one where he criticises the PJ? He won't be back in Portugal anytime soon.
Where do you get this idea that he is not in Portugal? Gonçalo Amaral lives in Lisbon and one tabloid took a photo of him recently drinking a beer in a café in Lisbon.
I know you are being supportive of the McCanns Brietta but do you really think it's helpful forcing them into the position that, because their supporters expect it, they take their case to the ECHR ?
I know you are being supportive of the McCanns Brietta but do you really think it's helpful forcing them into the position that, because their supporters expect it, they take their case to the ECHR ?
Well, if they do and they get rejected again it might finally sink in that defamation has to be proved, not just alleged.
Well, if they do and they get rejected again it might finally sink in that defamation has to be proved, not just alleged.If someone wrote a book in which the author claimed you had hidden your child's body and yet there was no evidence that you had done so, and following an extensive police investigation you had never been charged let alone arrested, so in the eyes of the law were innocent, would you not consider the book defamatory? If not, why not?
Well as they would be taking the State of Portugal to court, it would seem very likely the case would never be heard.
I wonder if there will be an attempt to sequester the funds of The State of Portugal ?.
Well, if they do and they get rejected again it might finally sink in that defamation has to be proved, not just alleged.I thought it was obvious that there was defamation, so there is nothing to prove. Anyone just need ask themselves would they like those accusations be presented in a book that make it sound like it was the truth and your own theory called a lie.
@)(++(* @)(++(*Have they munched through all the sardines?
I'm sure the Portuguese could give them as few Pilchards.
IMO the McCanns need to keep the Portuguese Judiciary & State onside while the investigation is ongoing. Any move to damage Portugal's reputation before a conclusion, in whatever form, is reached will mean the last 10 years of searching & court actions have been absolutely wasted.
I know you are being supportive of the McCanns Brietta but do you really think it's helpful forcing them into the position that, because their supporters expect it, they take their case to the ECHR ?
Madeleine's parents will take whatever course of action they choose based on what is in her best interests. The only expectation I have of them is that consideration for Madeleine and her brother and sister will remain at the heart of everything they do. The word for that is love.It is the waiting that gets me. I'm really impatient.
Have they munched through all the sardines?
Madeleine's parents will take whatever course of action they choose based on what is in her best interests. The only expectation I have of them is that consideration for Madeleine and her brother and sister will remain at the heart of everything they do. The word for that is love.
IMO the McCanns need to keep the Portuguese Judiciary & State onside while the investigation is ongoing. Any move to damage Portugal's reputation before a conclusion, in whatever form, is reached will mean the last 10 years of searching & court actions have been absolutely wasted.
Madeleine's parents will take whatever course of action they choose based on what is in her best interests. The only expectation I have of them is that consideration for Madeleine and her brother and sister will remain at the heart of everything they do. The word for that is love.
A splendid sentiment Brietta but not really borne out by their past actions.I thought you had previously agreed that the parents of Madeleine McCann were loving and caring, have you now changed your position?
I thought you had previously agreed that the parents of Madeleine McCann were loving and caring, have you now changed your position?
IMO the McCanns need to keep the Portuguese Judiciary & State onside while the investigation is ongoing. Any move to damage Portugal's reputation before a conclusion, in whatever form, is reached will mean the last 10 years of searching & court actions have been absolutely wasted.