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

[Mr Gray]

That says the parents won't be charged. Then it says why. Are those reasons 'proof of innocence'? Elsewhere the prosecutors say;

We believe that the main damage was caused to the McCann arguidos, who lost the possibility to prove what they have protested since they were constituted arguidos: their innocence towards the fateful event;

So the prosecutors do not believe they have evidence amounting to 'proof of innocence'.

Do you have  a link to the original portuguese ...are they talking of evidence of innocence or proof of innocence

[slartibartfast]

No or about it.

The second version is what the files say.

The first isn't.

Same Portuguese, slightly different words English.

[Mr Gray]

You missed the "It appears..."

a link to where this appears

[slartibartfast]

and this...

But therefore we do not possess any minimally solid and rigorous foundation in order to be able to state, with the safety that is requested, which was or were the exact and precise crime(s) that was or were practised on the person of the minor Madeleine McCann - apart from the supposed but dismissed crime of exposure or abandonment - or to hold anyone responsible over its authorship.

Exposure and abandonment...

[slartibartfast]

a link to where this appears

SC judgement

[ferryman]

Exposure and abandonment...

Both dismissed.

By logical extension also anything more serious.

[slartibartfast]

Both dismissed.

By logical extension also anything more serious.

The law doesn't work that way.

[Mr Gray]

SC judgement

then the SC judgement is wrong....perhaps I should tell Duarte

[stephen25000]

then the SC judgement is wrong....perhaps I should tell Duarte

Ah, so now you are an expert in Portuguese Law.

[slartibartfast]

then the SC judgement is wrong....perhaps I should tell Duarte

I'm sure the SC read the Portuguese not online English translations.

[Mr Gray]

I'm sure the SC read the Portuguese not online English translations.

thats what I read....LOL  they are online....they seem a bit sloppy

[stephen25000]

Both dismissed.

By logical extension also anything more serious.

If this helps.

CRIME UNKNOWN.

[stephen25000]

thats what I read....LOL

...and you still don't understand.

[Alfie]

That says the parents won't be charged. Then it says why. Are those reasons 'proof of innocence'? Elsewhere the prosecutors say;

We believe that the main damage was caused to the McCann arguidos, who lost the possibility to prove what they have protested since they were constituted arguidos: their innocence towards the fateful event;

So the prosecutors do not believe they have evidence amounting to 'proof of innocence'.

In reference to the reconstitution, which no one has ever been able to explain how it would have proved their innocence. 

[Alfie]

I'm sure you know where it goes.

Or

From the translation in the OP of this thread:

" the non involvement of the parents, assisted witnesses, in any penally relevant action stems from the objective circumstances of them not being inside the apartment when Madeleine disappeared, from the normal behaviour that they displayed until said disappearance and afterwards, as can be amply concluded from witness statements, from the telephone communications analysis and also from the forensics' conclusions, namely the reports from the (Birmingham) Forensic Science Service (FSS) and from the National Institute for Legal Medicine.

Please point out the "it appears" or "it seems", thanks muchly.