McCanns appeal to the European Court of Human Rights

[Mr Gray]

Which means that it wasn't archived under 277/1, it was archived, as the SC judges argued, under 277/2.

But that isn't what the archiving report says.... And as Carana has said... How can a civil court which has not heard the evidence overule a criminal investigation  that has

[Carana]

Which means that it wasn't archived under 277/1, it was archived, as the SC judges argued, under 277/2.

Don't follow, G-Unit.

An archived case can be reopened whichever of the two clauses it fell under, if something suddenly credible, relevant and pertinent, suddenly falls on the desk and could be sufficient to reopen it whoever was responsible.

If her remains had been found, it would reopen the inquiry, but wouldn't necessarily involve the former arguidos. It might, of course, if something was found that provided founded suspicions. Just as it might not, depending on the circumstances and what exactly the new elements were.

Preferably not involving non-missing pink blankets...

[Carana]

But that isn't what the archiving report says.... And as Carana has said... How can a civil court which has not heard the evidence overule a criminal investigation  that has

The SC might, if it was competent to review legal arguments and rulings in both civil and criminal cases (although I havent't checked whether that's the case or not).

However, for some reason, it does appear (to me) that one paragraph had been taken in isolation, and which was unlikely to have altered the course of the investigation in any case. If it HAD been vital, there was nothing to stop the authorities from slapping arguido status on the lot of them and dragging them all back to check on the neurological perceptions of the sound of flip-flops to two males engaged in banter to the tune of x decibels.

What I find more curious is the assumption that the prosecutors hadn't actually weighed up the totality of the considerations and didn't know what they were doing when they opted for that archival clause. A bit of an insult, in this case, IMO, and in a case in which the courts kept emphasising that the criminal case was beyond their remit.

Something's not computing for me at the moment.

[Mr Gray]

Don't follow, G-Unit. Ko

An archived case can be reopened whichever of the two clauses it fell under, if something suddenly credible, relevant and pertinent, suddenly falls on the desk and could be sufficient to reopen it whoever was responsible.

If her remains had been found, it would reopen the inquiry, but wouldn't necessarily involve the former arguidos. It might, of course, if something was found that provided founded suspicions. Just as it might not, depending on the circumstances and what exactly the new elements were.

Preferably not involving non-missing pink blankets...

So filing under 277/1 does not mean the case cannot be re-opened... We've got there in the end

[Mr Gray]

The SC might, if it was competent to review legal arguments and rulings in both civil and criminal cases (although I havent't checked whether that's the case or not).

However, for some reason, it does appear (to me) that one paragraph had been taken in isolation, and which was unlikely to have altered the course of the investigation in any case. If it HAD been vital, there was nothing to stop the authorities from slapping arguido status on the lot of them and dragging them all back to check on the neurological perceptions of the sound of flip-flops to two males engaged in banter to the tune of x decibels.

What I find more curious is the assumption that the prosecutors hadn't actually weighed up the totality of the considerations and didn't know what they were doing when they opted for that archival clause. A bit of an insult, in this case, IMO, and in a case in which the courts kept emphasising that the criminal case was beyond their remit.

Something's not computing for me at the moment.

Added to the fact that Gerry was prevented from contesting the cadaver evidence

[Carana]

Added to the fact that Gerry was prevented from contesting the cadaver evidence

I can see that disputing the facts of the case would belong to a criminal trial, and that the SC was limiting itself to the legal side, but I still don't see how, on the basis of the entire contents of the legal summary, taken as a whole, they can take it upon themselves to change what now appears to be a key point relating to a criminal ruling due to an interpretation of one phrase, while examing the merits of a civil case.

[Mr Gray]

I can see that disputing the facts of the case would belong to a criminal trial, and that the SC was limiting itself to the legal side, but I still don't see how, on the basis of the entire contents of the legal summary, taken as a whole, they can take it upon themselves to change what now appears to be a key point relating to a criminal ruling due to an interpretation of one phrase, while examing the merits of a civil case.

The point us that they are making a decision on a criminal ruling when the McCann's have never had the opportunity ti contest the evidence against them in which the ruling was made

[Alice Purjorick]

It might be helpful were the good Lady Judge's ruling re-read.....
It can be found on this very site.

[Alice Purjorick]

Allegedly!

"Judge – To decide that there are already forensic experts. We are not here to prove if the contents of the book are truthful or not. Here we are only trying to establish if the freedom of expression of the defendants has affected the rights of the claimants. This court cannot be a substitute of the criminal investigation. [Turns to the interpreter] Tell the gentleman that he is excused".

[jassi]

Allegedly!

"Judge – To decide that there are already forensic experts. We are not here to prove if the contents of the book are truthful or not. Here we are only trying to establish if the freedom of expression of the defendants has affected the rights of the claimants. This court cannot be a substitute of the criminal investigation. [Turns to the interpreter] Tell the gentleman that he is excused".

What a put down line   

[Alice Purjorick]

http://miscarriageofjustice.co/index.php?board=68.0

[Carana]

The point us that they are making a decision on a criminal ruling when the McCann's have never had the opportunity ti contest the evidence against them in which the ruling was made

Filing it under "insufficient evidence" makes it sound (IMO) as if there IS credible evidence both as to whatever the crime actually was and against the arguidos, just not quite enough to secure a conviction.

What evidence?

Although Rebelo (and others) did quite a good job (IMO) of checking things out and presenting a coherent report, and which the prosecutor appears to have gone over carefully, what had initially appeared to be "evidence" of the kind that would bowl a court over,  fizzled out like hot Coke.

I had thought upon a first read that Isabel Duarte might have gone out on a shaky limb there, but for the moment, I think she has a valid point.

And that change appears to be a major point in Amaral ultimately winning the case, and his right to carry on accusing them of whatever theories pop into his head wile taking a shower.

[Erngath]

What a put down line   

Not really.
Much nicer than many names he has been called in sceptic forum land
Very polite IMO

[Mr Gray]

Filing it under "insufficient evidence" makes it sound (IMO) as if there IS credible evidence both as to whatever the crime actually was and against the arguidos, just not quite enough to secure a conviction.

What evidence?

Although Rebelo (and others) did quite a good job (IMO) of checking things out and presenting a coherent report, and which the prosecutor appears to have gone over carefully, what had initially appeared to be "evidence" of the kind that would bowl a court over,  fizzled out like hot Coke.

I had thought upon a first read that Isabel Duarte might have gone out on a shaky limb there, but for the moment, I think she has a valid point.

And that change appears to be a major point in Amaral ultimately winning the case, and his right to carry on accusing them of whatever theories pop into his head wile taking a shower.

It seems a deliberate attempt to imply some degree of guilt when the Archiving report  said clearly there, was, NO evidence of any crime

[Carana]

Allegedly!

"Judge – To decide that there are already forensic experts. We are not here to prove if the contents of the book are truthful or not. Here we are only trying to establish if the freedom of expression of the defendants has affected the rights of the claimants. This court cannot be a substitute of the criminal investigation. [Turns to the interpreter] Tell the gentleman that he is excused".

This seems so alien to those who've followed English media libel trials, but the system is totally different.