Supreme Court rules against the McCanns in damages case.

[stephen25000]

At the moment I've not bothered to progress beyond page two.  Life is far too short to be wasted on misinformed tittle tattle.  No doubt I may continue reading once the paint on the wall has dried properly ... watching that was far more interesting than reading medieval ramblings with no place at all in the nineteenth century let alone the twenty first.

Do forgive me, on that basis I have not bothered to read your post either ... it is really all a monumental irrelevance to furthering Madeleine McCann's case ... and quite frankly I'm bored with the renewed mendacity directed at her parents despite the fact Amaral has won his right to freedom of speech.

The book had no basis in fact ... Amaral has won his right to free speech ... the McCanns have had their right not to suffer character assassination and defamation removed.

The maxim that with rights comes responsibility seems to have been overlooked somewhat.

You seem to have omitted Brietta, that the crime, if any, of Mafeleine's disappearance, remains undetermined and unknown.

The McCann's initiated events in this case, so above all else they bear responsibility for their actions.

No waxing lyrical will change that.

[faithlilly]

Is it just me or have th supporters all but forgotten that this case was supposed to be about stopping the harm the book was doing to the search for Madeleine ? So far the concern shown is for her parent's reputation alone.

[Alfie]

No, the whole point is that the McCanns were made Arguidos in the case which is definitely different from me. They cannot be regarded as Guilty or Innocent as it has never been taken to court.

Insanity.

[Alfie]

Presumption of innocence is a concept in legal actions.

So what are we talking about here?  A teddy bear's picnic?

[Alice Purjorick]

At the moment I've not bothered to progress beyond page two.  Life is far too short to be wasted on misinformed tittle tattle.  No doubt I may continue reading once the paint on the wall has dried properly ... watching that was far more interesting than reading medieval ramblings with no place at all in the nineteenth century let alone the twenty first.

Do forgive me, on that basis I have not bothered to read your post either ... it is really all a monumental irrelevance to furthering Madeleine McCann's case ... and quite frankly I'm bored with the renewed mendacity directed at her parents despite the fact Amaral has won his right to freedom of speech.

The book had no basis in fact ... Amaral has won his right to free speech ... the McCanns have had their right not to suffer character assassination and defamation removed.

The maxim that with rights comes responsibility seems to have been overlooked somewhat.

1 Go tell it to the marines.
2 Some on here should be cognisant of that maxim, furthermore those who are there to correct them should not be derelict in their duties.

[Robittybob1]

The same applies in Portugal. The McCanns were not required to prove their innocence. What was publicised was the erroneous belief that releasing someone from arguido status 'proved' them innocent. It didn't.

I think that can be accepted but it doesn't prove them guilty either.

[Alfie]

Is it just me or have th supporters all but forgotten that this case was supposed to be about stopping the harm the book was doing to the search for Madeleine ? So far the concern shown is for her parent's reputation alone.

No we haven't forgotten, but currently we're engaged in a discussion about the Supreme Court ruling which has decided that the McCanns' can't be considered innocent because years ago they were made arguidos and the case shelved for lack of evidence.  I for one am trying to understand what their current status is, if they haven't been cleared, they can't be considered innocent, but they haven't been arguidos for 9 years.  They seem to be in some sort of legal purgatory which has yet to be given a proper definition in law. 

[jassi]

I think that can be accepted but it doesn't prove them guilty either.

Has anyone said it did?

[Alfie]

An interesting comment from a Portuguese commentator, back in 2007 - says it all really:

 Joao Marques dos Santos of Correio da Manha. "The theory of the presumption of innocence for an arguido is a joke. When someone is declared an arguido, the exact opposite occurs. That person, whether innocent or not, is considered by investigators to be potentially guilty. The effects are devastating and irreparable."

https://www.theguardian.com/media/2007/sep/17/mondaymediasection13

[Eleanor]

An interesting comment from a Portuguese commentator, back in 2007 - says it all really:

 Joao Marques dos Santos of Correio da Manha. "The theory of the presumption of innocence for an arguido is a joke. When someone is declared an arguido, the exact opposite occurs. That person, whether innocent or not, is considered by investigators to be potentially guilty. The effects are devastating and irreparable."

https://www.theguardian.com/media/2007/sep/17/mondaymediasection13

That just about said it all, nearly ten years ago.

[Robittybob1]

Presumption of innocence is the principle that one is considered innocent unless proven guilty.  Not considered a little bit dodgy, or hmmm...I bet they're not letting on the whole story or haha they failed to prove their innocence.  Considered innocent until proven guilty The onus is not on anyone to prove their innocence, it should go without saying that in law one IS innocent until proven otherwise.  It seems the PT Judiciary don't understand this concept.

If someone goes missing, everyone is presumed innocent, for there may have been no crime committed.  But as time goes on there will be some under suspicion, even though there may be insufficient evidence to take the case to court.  In these cases the presumption of innocence seems to be lost for the ones under suspicion.
Can the ones under suspicion then claim damages?  I suppose it depends on what is claimed against those under suspicion.

[stephen25000]

As a reminder, though I am sure this has done before, the status of arguida can be reactivated for up to 20 years after the initial declaration.

[Robittybob1]

If a suspect is investigated and is released without charge and suspect status removed ... that person is innocent.

No.  In some cases they will be cleared but at other times they are still under investigation.

[Robittybob1]

I think the PT Judiciary understand Portuguese law better than the rest of us on the forum stuck together.

They ruled against the McCann claim.  This does not make the McCanns guilty of anything, other than perhaps choosing a poor course of action.

The poor course of action:  Defending their rights!

[Alice Purjorick]

I am sure the plaintiffs, the defendants, the courts, two sets of police and appropriate advogados are well aware of the full SP. No one else need know. It might make a nice tale in the MSM in the fullness of time unless something meatier crops up.