McCanns appeal to the European Court of Human Rights

[stephen25000]

"The Supreme Court judges said that lifting their status as formal suspects does not mean that they were innocent."

Yes, correct, it doesn't say they are guilty either. It is just an archived, unsolved case and the parents have not been ruled out. Nothing illegal about that at all. It was their lawyer who claimed they were deemed innocent (cleared)not 'presumed innocent' but innocent quite  different fish tank altogether.

Just to  make it even more clearer than that-They may still to this day be suspects, that does not mean they are not presumed innocent it means they are suspected of something.




"The court said it wasn't their job to determine whether the McCanns bore any criminal responsibility over their daughter's disappearance and said it would be wrong for anyone to draw any inferences about the couple's guilt or innocence from their ruling.

Yes, indeed correct again this was a civil court where the McCanns were not accused of anything as they were  pursuing Amaral for money.
They have not been charged- arrested and taken to court accused and tried on Amarals book. It doesn't work that way see.

So let us do a round up...
CRIMINAL COURT:
No criminal court has accused the McCanns without presuming they are innocent. No Police force have declared them innocent as the case was archived, and they may be presumed innocent but still under suspicion.
CIVIL COURT:
In the civil court It wasn't their job to determine whether the McCanns bore any criminal responsibility .

I hope this is clearer now.  So anyway regardless  of all that the McCanns are not going to 'clear their name' because the ECHR don't do individual cases.

Thank you for that post Miss Taken.

[G-Unit]

I assume that the archiving report is a legal document in the Portuguese justice system. The courts used this document to verify the facts contained in Amaral's book, which were gathered under judicial secrecy. Notwithstanding the fact that Amaral broke his duty of reserve and  the DVDs of the files were not in the public domain when his book was published, what right did the SC have to retrospectively alter the content of the very report used to verify Amaral's opinions to the detriment of 2 named arguidos?

I don't know the status of an archiving report.

I don't know if they used the archiving report to verify the facts or not. In the proven facts it says;

 (Items 27 & 28) It is proved that the facts in the book and in the documentary, concerning the investigation, are mostly facts that took place in the investigation and are documented as such.
http://miscarriageofjustice.co/index.php?topic=5931.0

The Appeal Court judges rejected the claim that Amaral breached his duty of reserve, and the Supreme Court judges agreed.

The Supreme Court judges didn't alter even one word of the content of the archiving dispatch.

[Brietta]

"The Supreme Court judges said that lifting their status as formal suspects does not mean that they were innocent."

Yes, correct, it doesn't say they are guilty either. It is just an archived, unsolved case and the parents have not been ruled out. Nothing illegal about that at all. It was their lawyer who claimed they were deemed innocent (cleared)not 'presumed innocent' but innocent quite  different fish tank altogether.

Just to  make it even more clearer than that-They may still to this day be suspects, that does not mean they are not presumed innocent it means they are suspected of something.




"The court said it wasn't their job to determine whether the McCanns bore any criminal responsibility over their daughter's disappearance and said it would be wrong for anyone to draw any inferences about the couple's guilt or innocence from their ruling.

Yes, indeed correct again this was a civil court where the McCanns were not accused of anything as they were  pursuing Amaral for money.
They have not been charged- arrested and taken to court accused and tried on Amarals book. It doesn't work that way see.

So let us do a round up...
CRIMINAL COURT:
No criminal court has accused the McCanns without presuming they are innocent. No Police force have declared them innocent as the case was archived, and they may be presumed innocent but still under suspicion.
CIVIL COURT:
In the civil court It wasn't their job to determine whether the McCanns bore any criminal responsibility .

I hope this is clearer now.  So anyway regardless  of all that the McCanns are not going to 'clear their name' because the ECHR don't do individual cases.

Please allow us to wait and see what will happen with the application made to the ECHR on behalf of the McCanns.

In my opinion you have entirely missed the ramifications of the comments made by the Portuguese supreme court judgement.

I'm no expert on this subject and patently neither are you.

Bearing that in mind, it would be rather appropriate if you would mention the forum protocol of stating "in my opinion" when it is ... unless you are able to provide cites substantiating what you have posted as fact.

[stephen25000]

Please allow us to wait and see what will happen with the application made to the ECHR on behalf of the McCanns.

In my opinion you have entirely missed the ramifications of the comments made by the Portuguese supreme court judgement.

I'm no expert on this subject and patently neither are you.

Bearing that in mind, it would be rather appropriate if you would mention the forum protocol of stating "in my opinion" when it is ... unless you are able to provide cites substantiating what you have posted as fact.

Have you actually read on what basis the Supreme Court made their judgement, and in reference to the E.C.H.R. case they used as a benchmark ?

[Brietta]

Have you actually read on what basis the Supreme Court made their judgement, and in reference to the E.C.H.R. case they used as a benchmark ?

I thought everyone has.  Haven't you ?

[John]

9 FEBRUARY 2017
Madeleine McCann’s parents have not been ruled innocent when it comes to their daughter’s disappearance, a judge in Portugal’s highest court has said.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2017/02/09/madeleine-mccanns-parents-have-not-ruled-innocent-judge-says/

9 February 2017
Judges made it clear in their decision their job was not to decide whether the McCanns bore any criminal responsibility over their daughter's disappearance and it would be wrong for anyone to draw any inferences about the couple's guilt or innocence from their ruling.

But they added: 'It should not be said that the appellants were cleared via the ruling announcing the archiving of the criminal case.

'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.

'There is therefore a significant, and not merely a semantic difference, between the legally admissible foundations of the archive ruling.

'It doesn't therefore seem acceptable that the ruling, based on the insufficiency of evidence, should be equated to proof of innocence.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-4206214/Court-says-Madeleine-McCann-s-parents-HAVEN-T-cleared.html#ixzz4sMyED0uo


February 9 2017
The Supreme Court judges said that lifting their status as formal suspects does not mean that they were innocent.

The court said it wasn't their job to determine whether the McCanns bore any criminal responsibility over their daughter's disappearance and said it would be wrong for anyone to draw any inferences about the couple's guilt or innocence from their ruling.

According to the Telegraph, they said: "It should not be said that the appellants were cleared via the ruling announcing the archiving of the criminal case. 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.

"There is therefore a significant, and not merely a semantic difference, between the legally admissible foundations of the archive ruling. It doesn't therefore seem acceptable that the ruling, based on the insufficiency of evidence, should be equated to proof of innocence."

They added: "It's true that the aforementioned criminal inquiry ended up being archived, namely because none of the apparent evidence that led to the appellants being made 'arguidos' was subsequently confirmed or consolidated.

"However even the archive ruling raises serious concerns relating to the truth of the allegation that Madeleine was kidnapped."
http://www.independent.ie/world-news/europe/britain/madeleine-mccanns-parents-have-not-been-ruled-innocent-judge-says-35437360.html


It seems I was wrong about semantics not being an issue should the McCann request to be heard by the European Court be granted.

It is a word which has appeared in the offending opinion of the judges who should in my opinion have implemented their own caveat and borne in mind what they were judging and not that about which they admitted they had no locus.

It has taken ten years to get to this stage in Portugal;  making a four year wait for the European Court to sit in judgement should the case be accepted.

If you were in a similar situation as the McCanns and were content to cowtow to such a ruling that would be a matter for you.

Were I in the McCann's situation I would be doing exactly what they are ... and challenging a supreme court ruling which had driven a coach and horses through my reputation and my honour.

Good references Brie.  Personally, I don't see any problem where the SC judgement is concerned. The McCanns were clearly afforded the presumption of innocence at all stages of the initial enquiry but when made arguidos, Kate chose for whatever reason not to cooperate with the investigators.

The SC was correct to add in their judgement that the Archive Report did not provide an exoneration for the McCanns.  What the Archive did was to set out the facts as were then known, it clearly stated that there was no evidence of criminal involvement by the parents. I don't have to add that that is not the same thing as saying they were cleared.

[Miss Taken Identity]

Please allow us to wait and see what will happen with the application made to the ECHR on behalf of the McCanns.

In my opinion you have entirely missed the ramifications of the comments made by the Portuguese supreme court judgement.

I'm no expert on this subject and patently neither are you.

Bearing that in mind, it would be rather appropriate if you would mention the forum protocol of stating "in my opinion" when it is ... unless you are able to provide cites substantiating what you have posted as fact.

What part isn't fact?

[stephen25000]

I thought everyone has.  Haven't you ?

That is why I asked you. Evidently, you don't comprehend the implications.

The McCann's have no grounds to go to the E.C.H.R.

Never did.

All bluster and arrogance on their part.

I.M.H.O. obviously.

[misty]

I don't know the status of an archiving report.

I don't know if they used the archiving report to verify the facts or not. In the proven facts it says;

 (Items 27 & 28) It is proved that the facts in the book and in the documentary, concerning the investigation, are mostly facts that took place in the investigation and are documented as such.
http://miscarriageofjustice.co/index.php?topic=5931.0

The Appeal Court judges rejected the claim that Amaral breached his duty of reserve, and the Supreme Court judges agreed.

The Supreme Court judges didn't alter even one word of the content of the archiving dispatch.

How did the courts verify the facts in the book & documentary if not by using the official files? Are the contents of the official files not all legal documents?

The SC changed the filing article from 277/1 to 277/2 which effectively changed the opinion of the PP/AG at the time of filing regarding the reasons behind the filing. Innocence does not need to be proven when the nature of a crime, if indeed there was one, has not been established. Even nine years after the archival, the SC is not able to legally rule that the McCanns have not demonstrated their innocence - in fact, it's quite the opposite state of affairs.

I actually see this whole fiasco as a cop-out by the SC. By making the decision they did, Amaral finally had his sequestered assets released to him, so mission accomplished for him. The lawyers & the court system will be the
bodies fighting for their money which is of no concern to the SC. There is no guarantee any claim to the ECHR will be successful & even if it is, it won't be the SC's problem but merely another ruling for their archives. The state will foot any compensation awarded by ECHR, not Amaral.

All IMO.

[Miss Taken Identity]

Good references Brie.  Personally, I don't see any problem where the SC judgement is concerned. The McCanns were clearly afforded the presumption of innocence at all stages of the initial enquiry but when made arguidos, Kate chose for whatever reason not to cooperate with the investigators.

The SC was correct to add in their judgement that the Archive Report did not provide an exoneration for the McCanns.  What the Archive did was to set out the facts as were then known, it clearly stated that there was no evidence of criminal involvement by the parents. I don't have to add that that is not the same thing as saying they were cleared.

lol I thought I just explained that John?

So to be very ,very clear having no evidence means having no evidence, it does not mean having no evidence means innocence has been established,  legal argument would establish this and this would be done in a criminal court.

I would also like to add to that if  person A  punches person B and their are no witnesses - person A would be found innocent even though they did punch person B

[stephen25000]

I do wonder why the Mccann supporters believe the McCann'S have a cat in hell's chance of getting anywhere with the E.C.H.R.

[misty]

I do wonder why the Mccann supporters believe the McCann'S have a cat in hell's chance of getting anywhere with the E.C.H.R.

When the alleged abductors are finally arrested, the McCanns will also have the option of suing the Portuguese police for the incompetent way the first team handled matters. Think Harvey Proctor.

[stephen25000]

When the alleged abductors are finally arrested, the McCanns will also have the option of suing the Portuguese police for the incompetent way the first team handled matters. Think Harvey Proctor.

Dream your little dream.

Ain't going to happen.

[G-Unit]

How did the courts verify the facts in the book & documentary if not by using the official files? Are the contents of the official files not all legal documents?

The SC changed the filing article from 277/1 to 277/2 which effectively changed the opinion of the PP/AG at the time of filing regarding the reasons behind the filing. Innocence does not need to be proven when the nature of a crime, if indeed there was one, has not been established. Even nine years after the archival, the SC is not able to legally rule that the McCanns have not demonstrated their innocence - in fact, it's quite the opposite state of affairs.

I actually see this whole fiasco as a cop-out by the SC. By making the decision they did, Amaral finally had his sequestered assets released to him, so mission accomplished for him. The lawyers & the court system will be the
bodies fighting for their money which is of no concern to the SC. There is no guarantee any claim to the ECHR will be successful & even if it is, it won't be the SC's problem but merely another ruling for their archives. The state will foot any compensation awarded by ECHR, not Amaral.

All IMO.

Obviously they used the files, which isn't exactly the same as saying they used the archiving dispatch. There are many documents in the files, only one of which is the archiving report,

The SC changed the article but that didn't change the contents of the report. A case archived under  277/1 cannot be reopened. The PP and the AG both stated that the case could be reopened, which is why the SC changed the article to 277/2 under which it could be reopened.

The only people claiming that the archiving report found the McCann's innocent was....the McCann's lawyer. As the SC judges pointed out, they may well be innocent, but the archiving report can't be offered as proof that they are.

In my opinion the blame for the fiasco cannot be laid at the door of the SC. The blame lies with those who tried to 'prove' that they were innocent because that was the only way they could 'prove' defamation.

[Robittybob1]

lol I thought I just explained that John?

So to be very ,very clear having no evidence means having no evidence, it does not mean having no evidence means innocence has been established,  legal argument would establish this and this would be done in a criminal court.

I would also like to add to that if  person A  punches person B and their are no witnesses - person A would be found innocent even though they did punch person B

A judge can decide based on evidence bruises etc.  You might be wrong about that.