What is the lie in Amarals book. The truth of the lie.

[Mr Gray]

None, because there are no documents which declare the McCanns are innocent.

The first judge said Amaral breached the McCanns right to the presumption of innocence because his freedom of expression, unlike that of other commentators, was restricted by the terms of his retirement from the PJ.

The Court of Appeal rejected that argument and overturned the decision.

The McCanns then appealed to the SC and argued that Amaral breached their right to the presumption of innocence because he contradicted the findings of the archiving dispatch.

The SC judges ruled that the archiving dispatch had been misunderstood, therefore it couldn't be used as  the grounds to argue that Anaral breached the McCann's right to the presumption of innocence.

The mccanns do not need the archiving report to be entitled to the presumption of innocence... That is patently incorrect

[G-Unit]

The mccanns do not need the archiving report to be entitled to the presumption of innocence... That is patently incorrect

It was their decision to use it, no-one else's.

[Mr Gray]

It was their decision to use it, no-one else's.

You haven't yet provided a cite that duarte claimed the AR was proof of innocence.... Duarte was quite right to claim it, was evidence if innocence

[Mr Gray]

It was their decision to use it, no-one else's.

You quoted..



"As far as the appellants are aware of, the archiving at stake was carried out, in the course of the investigation, because sufficient proof had been gathered that the then arguidos did not commit any facts of a criminal relevance and in any way whatsoever"


Who do you think made that statement.... I think you have made, a mistake

[G-Unit]

You quoted..



"As far as the appellants are aware of, the archiving at stake was carried out, in the course of the investigation, because sufficient proof had been gathered that the then arguidos did not commit any facts of a criminal relevance and in any way whatsoever"


Who do you think made that statement.... I think you have made, a mistake

I think the statement was made to the SC by  Dr Ricardo Correia Afonso. If you disagree I think it's up to you to demonstrate that your thinking is correct.

[Sunny]

I think the statement was made to the SC by  Dr Ricardo Correia Afonso. If you disagree I think it's up to you to demonstrate that your thinking is correct.

In her appeal it does say this (with a google translation)

The filing in question took place because, during the investigation, it was established that the defendants did not make any facts of criminal relevance and any issue, and this conclusion was closed for reasons of fact


This was translated from

Oh arquivamento em causa teve lugar por, durante o inqerito er sido recolhida prova bastante de que os arguidos nao practicaram quaisquer factos co relevancia penal e a qualquer itulo, consubstancianado esta conclusia um arquivamento por razos de facto


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

[Brietta]

Please note:  it would be helpful for members when posting quotes to include the link address with some guidance given if necessary to the place where quotes can be located.  This will enable them to be read in context.
Thank you

[Sunny]

Please note:  it would be helpful for members when posting quotes to include the link address with some guidance given if necessary to the place where quotes can be located.  This will enable them to be read in context.
Thank you

Link now added Brietta.  Just after Note 8 on the images.

[Mr Gray]

In her appeal it does say this (with a google translation)

The filing in question took place because, during the investigation, it was established that the defendants did not make any facts of criminal relevance and any issue, and this conclusion was closed for reasons of fact


This was translated from

Oh arquivamento em causa teve lugar por, durante o inqerito er sido recolhida prova bastante de que os arguidos nao practicaram quaisquer factos co relevancia penal e a qualquer itulo, consubstancianado esta conclusia um arquivamento por razos de facto


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

So no talk of proving innocence

[Angelo222]

None, because there are no documents which declare the McCanns are innocent.

The first judge said Amaral breached the McCanns right to the presumption of innocence because his freedom of expression, unlike that of other commentators, was restricted by the terms of his retirement from the PJ.

The Court of Appeal rejected that argument and overturned the decision.

The McCanns then appealed to the SC and argued that Amaral breached their right to the presumption of innocence because he contradicted the findings of the archiving dispatch.

The SC judges ruled that the archiving dispatch had been misunderstood, therefore it couldn't be used as  the grounds to argue that Anaral breached the McCann's right to the presumption of innocence.

The gist of the Archive Report was that there was inadequate evidence to bring charges against the parents in respect of Maddie's disappearance.  Adding that the refusal of their friends to take part in a reconstruction was unhelpful to the parents in that they had lost an opportunity to demonstrate their innocence.  Failing to demonstrate innocence speaks for itself regardless of the presumption of innocence.

[Sunny]

The gist of the Archive Report was that there was inadequate evidence to bring charges against the parents in respect of Maddie's disappearance.  Adding that the refusal of their friends to take part in a reconstruction was unhelpful to the parents in that they had lost an opportunity to demonstrate their innocence.  Failing to demonstrate innocence speaks for itself regardless of the presumption of innocence.

According to the SC Isobel Duarte did put  this in her application to the court

c. It shakes also the honour, the good name and the image of any innocent person, and already cleared before through the filing dispatch of a criminal investigation (the conclusion of which is that there is no element of proof nor evidence that the person committed any crime), a book, a documentary and an interview, extravagant in relation to the criminal investigation, and not even being part of those communicational supports the mention of that filing dispatch, but instead exactly the contrary of what this dispatch is postulating.


http://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/Supreme_Court_31_01_2017.htm

[Venturi Swirl]

Arguing about words distracts attention from the point. The point is that the McCanns/Duarte believed and argued that the archiving dispatch could be used to support their claim of innocence. It couldn't.

What could individuals in their situation have used to support a claim of innocence, if anything?

[Mr Gray]

The gist of the Archive Report was that there was inadequate evidence to bring charges against the parents in respect of Maddie's disappearance.  Adding that the refusal of their friends to take part in a reconstruction was unhelpful to the parents in that they had lost an opportunity to demonstrate their innocence.  Failing to demonstrate innocence speaks for itself regardless of the presumption of innocence.

All your opinion and of no relevance ........my opinion...not wanting to co operate with an inept police force that misunderstood the evidence and that mistakenly thought  had evidence that proved them guilty

[Mr Gray]

According to the SC Isobel Duarte did put  this in her application to the court

c. It shakes also the honour, the good name and the image of any innocent person, and already cleared before through the filing dispatch of a criminal investigation (the conclusion of which is that there is no element of proof nor evidence that the person committed any crime), a book, a documentary and an interview, extravagant in relation to the criminal investigation, and not even being part of those communicational supports the mention of that filing dispatch, but instead exactly the contrary of what this dispatch is postulating.


http://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/Supreme_Court_31_01_2017.htm

I think thats fair comment...again no mention of a claim that the archiving dispatch was proof of innocence which is what gunit has claimed but failed to provide a cite for

[jassi]

What could individuals in their situation have used to support a claim of innocence, if anything?

A PR spokesperson, perhaps?