Supreme Court rules against the McCanns in damages case.

[ShiningInLuz]

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

No, that person is entitled to be presumed innocent.

The McCanns are entitled to be presumed innocent, whether they actually are or not.  The same goes for the other 5 arguidos, whether they are still arguidos or not.

And the same goes for anyone charged, until such time as a court of law tries them and finds them guilty.

[jassi]

The judgement (unless poorly translated) seems to suggest that Amaral was within his rights to express his opinion in his books because his right to freedom of expression trumped the McCanns' right to a not be libelled and in any case  the McCanns had not been proven innocent, so there.  What a load of cobblers.

Whatever your opinion might be, the Portuguese position is reality.  McCanns lost and have to face the consequences.

[Alfie]

When's Isabel Duarte going to give us the benefit of her opinion on this judgement, if ever?

[Alfie]

Whatever your opinion might be, the Portuguese position is reality.  McCanns lost and have to face the consequences.

Nothing like stating the obvious.   

[jassi]

Nothing like stating the obvious.   

That's because some would like to forget.

[Alfie]

That's because some would like to forget.

Anyone wishing to forget would not come and post on this forum to be ridiculed and goaded on a daily basis, so I'm not sure who your post was aimed at.

[Brietta]

No, that person is entitled to be presumed innocent.

The McCanns are entitled to be presumed innocent, whether they actually are or not.  The same goes for the other 5 arguidos, whether they are still arguidos or not.

And the same goes for anyone charged, until such time as a court of law tries them and finds them guilty.

The McCanns have never been charged with any offence.  Although I believe your understanding of it is skewed ... what your post has indeed represented and described is ... the presumption of innocence as it is applicable to you ... to me ... and to Murat and the McCanns.

[jassi]

Anyone for whom the cap fits.

[G-Unit]

The McCanns claimed in their appeal that they were;

''absolutely innocent and cleared, by the archival dispatch of the crime-process''

The Supreme Court judges argue that the archival dispatch did not declare them to be cleared;

''let it not be said, also, that the appellants were cleared by the archival dispatch of the crime-process''

Consequently the McCanns couldn't claim that they were entitled to the presumption of innocence on that basis.


There may be other, better arguments as to why they are entitled to the presumption of innocence, but they chose to rely on the archival dispatch and it was dismissed as inadequate. They chose the wrong basis for their argument, that's all the judges are saying.
 

[Alfie]

The McCanns claimed in their appeal that they were;

''absolutely innocent and cleared, by the archival dispatch of the crime-process''

The Supreme Court judges argue that the archival dispatch did not declare them to be cleared;

''let it not be said, also, that the appellants were cleared by the archival dispatch of the crime-process''

Consequently the McCanns couldn't claim that they were entitled to the presumption of innocence on that basis.


There may be other, better arguments as to why they are entitled to the presumption of innocence, but they chose to rely on the archival dispatch and it was dismissed as inadequate. They chose the wrong basis for their argument, that's all the judges are saying.

They were entitled to the presumption of innocence FULL STOP regardless of what the McCanns may have presented as argument to reinforce this fact.

[Alfie]

What is the McCanns' status legally then if they are considered "not cleared" by the PT Judiciary?

[Brietta]

The judgement (unless poorly translated) seems to suggest that Amaral was within his rights to express his opinion in his books because his right to freedom of expression trumped the McCanns' right to a not be libelled and in any case  the McCanns had not been proven innocent, so there.  What a load of cobblers.

I think the way the judgement has been presented is spin ~ spin ~ and more propaganda to fuel the fires of future campaigns of vitriol against the McCanns.

Page 2

Starting the discussion in a logical and chronological order through book analysis, one immediately establishes that what is at stake is not a text with informative content.

In fact, one doesn't find in the book, reported in a stripped and simple way, the facts of the investigation that intended to clear the circumstances of the disappearance of the minor Madeleine McCann on May 3, 2007.

No added value is brought to the partial copy of the investigation that the Attorney General's Office did distribute for Social Communication after the closure of the investigation (paragraphs 65 and 66 of proven facts).

The book is the expression of an opinion, including the account of the conclusions that the author draws from the means of obtaining evidence produced in the investigation in order to formulate a thesis, an hypothesis of verifying of the facts.
http://www.gerrymccannsblogs.co.uk/Supreme_Court_31_01_2017.htm

Smoke and mirrors and confirmation that in Portugal Amaral's opinion (don't know if it applies to anyone else) supersedes the McCann's right not to be  libelled and their good name destroyed.

[Brietta]

The McCanns claimed in their appeal that they were;

''absolutely innocent and cleared, by the archival dispatch of the crime-process''

The Supreme Court judges argue that the archival dispatch did not declare them to be cleared;

''let it not be said, also, that the appellants were cleared by the archival dispatch of the crime-process''

Consequently the McCanns couldn't claim that they were entitled to the presumption of innocence on that basis.


There may be other, better arguments as to why they are entitled to the presumption of innocence, but they chose to rely on the archival dispatch and it was dismissed as inadequate. They chose the wrong basis for their argument, that's all the judges are saying.

They need to argue nothing.  They are entitled to that presumption.  They are innocent of any crime.  All the propaganda in the world cannot change that.

[jassi]

They need to argue nothing.  They are entitled to that presumption. They are innocent of any crime.  All the propaganda in the world cannot change that.

I thought the crime had not been determined.

[Angelo222]

They need to argue nothing.  They are entitled to that presumption.  They are innocent of any crime.  All the propaganda in the world cannot change that.

I think conspiracy to pervert the course of justice is still a crime in Portugal.