Supreme Court rules against the McCanns in damages case.

[Eleanor]

I was of the opinion that perhaps the McCanns might  have written off losing the libel case for exactly what it was worth (in my opinion an aberration) and to continue with their work and their family as best they can.
Bearing in mind that the next huge milestone in their lives will be Madeleine ten years missing followed by police decisions on whether or not they have reason to request more funding to be made available to continue her case.

It is now my firm opinion that they have been left with no choice but the European Court ... this time not on Madeleine's behalf ... but on their own.

And The McCanns won't be pursuing Amaral, but The State of Portugal.

I can hardly wait, if I live that long.  But I suspect that it might be marginally quicker than any sort of Justice in Portugal.  Presuming that Portugal has any conception of Justice.

[Eleanor]

It is my firm opinion that the McCanns will suffer another humiliating defeat if they appeal this decision to the ECHR.

This is always a possibility.  But what price for keeping Madeleine in the limelight?  And what price for dragging Portugal into the 21st century.

[G-Unit]

This is always a possibility.  But what price for keeping Madeleine in the limelight?  And what price for dragging Portugal into the 21st century.

The price will be more of the fund intended to be used to search for Madeleine being used to fund litigation to defend her parents. That would certainly keep them in the limelight. I think Portugal's libel laws are more in tune with the 21st Century than those of the UK. They were not criticised by the United Nations Human Rights Committee for attracting libel tourists for a start.

[jassi]

Not sure it would keep them in the limelight. These cases tend to disappear into a black hole until result is announced. Why should this be any different with Bell Pottinger long gone.

[Eleanor]

The price will be more of the fund intended to be used to search for Madeleine being used to fund litigation to defend her parents. That would certainly keep them in the limelight. I think Portugal's libel laws are more in tune with the 21st Century than those of the UK. They were not criticised by the United Nations Human Rights Committee for attracting libel tourists for a start.

But Portugal has been criticised by Amnesty International for what they did to The Ciprianos.

[ferryman]

What is disgraceful is your continued besmirching of anyone who goes against the McCann line.

So, a bit of straightforward  advice. The Supreme Court is done and dusted, and the McCann's have a great deal more to worry about now, so try helping them in a constructive way for a change.

There isn't a 'McCann line'.

There is a plain, simple and inalienable truth that escaped these Portuguese appeal-court judges.

The McCanns played no part in the disappearance of their daughter, Madeleine, and the files demonstrably demonstrate that so.

[slartibartfast]

But Portugal has been criticised by Amnesty International for what they did to The Ciprianos.

From a report produced by an organisation founded by Ciprianos lawyer.

[Eleanor]

From a report produced by an organisation founded by Ciprianos lawyer.

I am not going to ask you for a Cite for that.

[Alice Purjorick]

It is my firm opinion that the McCanns will suffer another humiliating defeat if they appeal this decision to the ECHR.

Five years for the court to decide if there is a case to be answered and another five years for the case to be heard. 
Steel and Morris in the MacLibel Trial is always worth a read as a sense check. Accent on sense.
 http://www.5rb.com/case/steel-morris-v-united-kingdom/

[stephen25000]

There isn't a 'McCann line'.

There is a plain, simple and inalienable truth that escaped these Portuguese appeal-court judges.

The McCanns played no part in the disappearance of their daughter, Madeleine, and the files demonstrably demonstrate that so.

The files were shelved, neither affirming or dismissing the McCann's involvement.

Read the judgement.

[Alice Purjorick]

A civil court has interfered in a questionable manner in the ruling of the Attorney General relating to a criminal case. I will be surprised if questions are not being asked in modern Portugal about what has been done here.

A viewpoint seemingly not upheld by the judgement.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2017/02/09/madeleine-mccanns-parents-have-not-ruled-innocent-judge-says/
 "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 said it would be wrong for anyone to draw any inferences about the couple's guilt or innocence from their ruling".

[Mr Gray]

We are being told that the mcccanns are not considered innocent because they have not been proved innocent
That is a clear breach of their human rights
Portugal seem to think it is a law unto itself...it isn't
Had they been tried at the time of the archiving they would have been found not guilty
I think and hope they wil go to the ECHR

[G-Unit]

We are being told that the mcccanns are not considered innocent because they have not been proved innocent
That is a clear breach of their human rights
Portugal seem to think it is a law unto itself...it isn't
Had they been tried at the time of the archiving they would have been found not guilty
I think and hope they wil go to the ECHR

You are being told that the archiving dispatch didn't clear the McCanns as they claimed it did. Nothing else. The Supreme Court judges gave no opinion on their guilt or innocence.

[ShiningInLuz]

We are being told that the mcccanns are not considered innocent because they have not been proved innocent
That is a clear breach of their human rights
Portugal seem to think it is a law unto itself...it isn't
Had they been tried at the time of the archiving they would have been found not guilty
I think and hope they wil go to the ECHR

They weren't tried at the time the case was archived.  Even if they had been found not guilty, that is not the same as being found innocent.

I hope they don't go to the ECHR.  IMO, it is money down the drain on legal fees, and a bucketload of adverse publicity.  But they have picked the wrong option many a time so far.  Even if it went against them, the ECHR would not be their worst choice to date.

[Robittybob1]

The focus of the investigation was either find the McCanns or Robert Murat guilty.  Since there was no evidence raised to show either of these guilty the investigation was shelved.  There is no way short of a miracle that either will be proven innocent.
I think SIL is spot on saying even if they were tried in court and found not guilty, the implication would still be there that they were not proven innocent. 
Proof of innocence would just about require the finding of a living Madeleine and a confession of an abductor.  This seems unlikely as the focus was never on finding such a person.