Supreme Court rules against the McCanns in damages case.

[misty]

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.

There have been 4 more arguidos since the archiving report. As they are all Portuguese residents it tends to suggest that the PJ have at least as much evidence against them as they did against the McCanns.

[Robittybob1]

There have been 4 more arguidos since the archiving report. As they are all Portuguese residents it tends to suggest that the PJ have at least as much evidence against them as they did against the McCanns.

Their alibis may have been strong enough to prove their innocence.  We don't know enough about them.  But the McCanns checking on their kids and RM at home with his mother who presumably went to bed at some stage have no one who can substantiate their alibis for moments that night.
They are stuck.

[misty]

Their alibis may have been strong enough to prove their innocence.  We don't know enough about them.  But the McCanns checking on their kids and RM at home with his mother who presumably went to bed at some stage have no one who can substantiate their alibis for moments that night.
They are stuck.

Many innocent people in Luz that night may well have had no alibi but only 3 came under scrutiny intense enough to be made arguidos in 2007. Whilst the archiving report may correctly state that it did not totally exonerate the McCanns (and Murat) at that time it also did not exonerate any other person who had been the subject of less intense scrutiny.

[Eleanor]

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

I half hope that they will, but I don't know what that will do to them.  Me?  I would be in there kicking and hollering.  But this hasn't happened to me, and so I cannot say what they should do.

In My Opinion, The Supreme Court of Portugal has just handed its arse on a platter to The McCanns.

[Brietta]

It is entirely for the McCanns to decide the best course of action for them.  Damned if they do ~ damned if they don't.

They have needed and need Portuguese co-operation in the search for Madeleine.  They have said or done nothing to rock that particular boat.  There was a climate of hope with Madeleine's case being re-opened in Portugal with the co-operation of both police forces and the fair and enlightened conduct of the trial judges.

One wonders what was actually going on behind the scenes and how deep this goes.  The old order hasn't changed as yet and I think that is well and truly brought home by the wording of the judgement.

How could those who framed that document and others with that mindset possibly put Madeleine's interests first? 

In my opinion the McCanns never stood a chance of justice in Portugal.  This judgement illustrates that the Portuguese State has been used against them and if so, the implication of that is devastating.

[Eleanor]

It is entirely for the McCanns to decide the best course of action for them.  Damned if they do ~ damned if they don't.

They have needed and need Portuguese co-operation in the search for Madeleine.  They have said or done nothing to rock that particular boat.  There was a climate of hope with Madeleine's case being re-opened in Portugal with the co-operation of both police forces and the fair and enlightened conduct of the trial judges.

One wonders what was actually going on behind the scenes and how deep this goes.  The old order hasn't changed as yet and I think that is well and truly brought home by the wording of the judgement.

How could those who framed that document and others with that mindset possibly put Madeleine's interests first? 

In my opinion the McCanns never stood a chance of justice in Portugal.  This judgement illustrates that the Portuguese State has been used against them and if so, the implication of that is devastating.

Don't worry about it, Love....  The Portuguese Judiciary has just shot itself in both feet.  Almost certainly because they had far too much to say, and well beyond their remit.

Anyone can pull this apart and come up with whatever they like.  The fact remains that there has never been any evidence to suggest that Madeleine is dead.

[Brietta]

Don't worry about it, Love....  The Portuguese Judiciary has just shot itself in both feet.  Almost certainly because they had far too much to say, and well beyond their remit.

Anyone can pull this apart and come up with whatever they like.  The fact remains that there has never been any evidence to suggest that Madeleine is dead.

Agreed.  The more they have said, the more there is to build a case with.  Injudicious of them to say the least to supply so much ammunition.
It really wasn't necessary as I think there was a fair chance the McCanns would have cut their losses and left it at that ... now I think that the odds are that they will go the European route.  I for one, hope they do.

[Eleanor]

Agreed.  The more they have said, the more there is to build a case with.  Injudicious of them to say the least to supply so much ammunition.
It really wasn't necessary as I think there was a fair chance the McCanns would have cut their losses and left it at that ... now I think that the odds are that they will go the European route.  I for one, hope they do.

You see, all The Supreme Court had to do was to rule on the right of Amaral to Free Speech.  I might not agree with their decision, but I do understand it.

But then they went beyond their remit and into the possible guilt or innocence of The McCanns, and the possible fate of Madeleine, neither of which they know anything about, or were ever called upon to decide.

And please don't let us be chary about this.  We all know what they meant, as has been made apparent even on this Forum.

Or did I get that wrong?  Mayhap The Supreme Court didn't mean what Sceptics think they meant.  Or perhaps the Sceptics don't think that The Court meant what they would like to believe, and are just bull shitting.

Come which way or what The Supreme Court of Portugal has just dumped itself in the dunny.

[John]

The Supreme Court has done nothing other than clarify what the Archiving Report stated nearly ten years ago.

"It should not be said that the appellants were cleared via the ruling announcing the archiving of the criminal case. In truth, that ruling was not made in virtue of Portugal's Public Prosecution Service having acquired the conviction that the appellants hadn't committed a crime.

"The archiving of the case was determined by the fact that public prosecutors hadn't managed to obtain sufficient evidence of the practice of crimes by the appellants.

"There is therefore a significant, and not merely a semantic difference, between the legally admissible foundations of the archive ruling. It doesn't therefore seem acceptable that the ruling, based on the insufficiency of evidence, should be equated to proof of innocence.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2017/02/09/madeleine-mccanns-parents-have-not-ruled-innocent-judge-says/

[Robittybob1]

You see, all The Supreme Court had to do was to rule on the right of Amaral to Free Speech.  I might not agree with their decision, but I do understand it.

But then they went beyond their remit and into the possible guilt or innocence of The McCanns, and the possible fate of Madeleine, neither of which they know anything about, or were ever called upon to decide.

And please don't let us be chary about this.  We all know what they meant, as has been made apparent even on this Forum.

Or did I get that wrong?  Mayhap The Supreme Court didn't mean what Sceptics think they meant.  Or perhaps the Sceptics don't think that The Court meant what they would like to believe, and are just bull shitting.

Come which way or what The Supreme Court of Portugal has just dumped itself in the dunny.

You can be allowed to have freedom of speech but surely that doesn't allow the freedom to defame.  I think this might be why they ventured into the new ground for it would be defamation if the McCanns were innocent and an outright lie if Madeleine was still alive.
They declared the McCanns aren't proven innocent.  Hardly unlikely for the only evidence sought was in order to prove them guilty. No one was trying to prove they were innocent.
They declared that Madeleine was most likely dead. 

It doesn't seem like a sound judgement to me.  It seems more like guesswork.

[Eleanor]

Nor should it be equated to proof of Guilt.  Which is precisely what is going on at the moment on this Forum, give or take a bit of semantics.

But no doubt we will survive.  Thanks to the efforts of your most excellent Moderators.

[Eleanor]

You can be allowed to have freedom of speech but surely that doesn't allow the freedom to defame.  I think this might be why they ventured into the new ground for it would be defamation if the McCanns were innocent and an outright lie if Madeleine was still alive.
They declared the McCanns aren't proven innocent.  Hardly unlikely for the only evidence sought was in order to prove them guilty. No one was trying to prove they were innocent.
They declared that Madeleine was most likely dead. 

It doesn't seem like a sound judgement to me.  It seems more like guesswork.

Guesswork?  I think that you are being too kind.

[Robittybob1]

Guesswork?  I think that you are being too kind.

What would have been a better explanation?

[Eleanor]

What would have been a better explanation?

My opinion wouldn't be an "Explanation" because I don't have to explain.  But my opinion would very likely be deemed Libellous.  In the absence of any proof of their incompetency.

[G-Unit]

You can be allowed to have freedom of speech but surely that doesn't allow the freedom to defame.  I think this might be why they ventured into the new ground for it would be defamation if the McCanns were innocent and an outright lie if Madeleine was still alive.
They declared the McCanns aren't proven innocent.  Hardly unlikely for the only evidence sought was in order to prove them guilty. No one was trying to prove they were innocent.
They declared that Madeleine was most likely dead. 

It doesn't seem like a sound judgement to me.  It seems more like guesswork.

Everyone has picked up on 'they declared the McCanns aren't proven innocent'. The judges actually say the McCanns weren't cleared by the archiving dispatch. They said that because Duarte claimed that they were. She said;

already cleared before through the filing dispatch of a criminal investigation [page 40]

The judges replied;

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