Supreme Court rules against the McCanns in damages case.

[stephen25000]

I’ve been reading this forum for a few years now, but haven’t felt inclined to join in before. But a few people have said that the Supreme Court ruling must mean that Murat is also still a suspect. This isn’t true, as the text of the final archival report does, in fact, completely clear him:

“It is nevertheless certain that through the collected evidence, said suspicions gradually emptied themselves, until the point where any connection of the arguido to the child's disappearance was set aside, which is why, at the end, the archiving of the process will be determined.”

The McCanns did not receive the same unequivocal exoneration:

“We believe that the main damage was caused to the McCann arguidos, who lost the possibility to prove what they have protested since they were constituted arguidos: their innocence towards the fateful event; the investigation was also disturbed, because said facts remain unclarified.”

The Supreme Court hasn’t made any judgement on the McCanns’ guilt or innocence. It merely pointed out that the McCanns cannot use the archival report to claim that they had been categorically cleared of involvement – their arguido status was lifted due to a lack of evidence and nothing could be proved either way.

Part of the McCanns’ case claimed that Amaral's book would have damaged the honour and good name of ‘any innocent person who had been cleared through the shelving of the criminal investigation’. It would have been somewhat remiss of the court not to point out that the archival report had not actually cleared them. The Supreme Court hasn’t ‘gone beyond its remit’ or made a ‘ruling’ or ignored ‘judicial impartiality’ on innocence or guilt – they have clarified a misinterpretation of a legal document by the claimants. It really is as simple as that.

So by all means carry on debating the right-to-free-expression vs. right-not-to-be-defamed angle. But please stop bashing the Portuguese legal system and (deliberately?) misinterpreting the judgement of their Supreme Court. After all, we know you would have been full of praise for them had the judgement gone the other way!

Well said MrsWuh.

...and welcome to this forum.


Your last sentence has a very pertinent point.

The McCann supporters would have been gloating if the Supreme Court had allowed the appeal, and given judgement in favour of the Mccanns.

[Mr Gray]

I’ve been reading this forum for a few years now, but haven’t felt inclined to join in before. But a few people have said that the Supreme Court ruling must mean that Murat is also still a suspect. This isn’t true, as the text of the final archival report does, in fact, completely clear him:

“It is nevertheless certain that through the collected evidence, said suspicions gradually emptied themselves, until the point where any connection of the arguido to the child's disappearance was set aside, which is why, at the end, the archiving of the process will be determined.”

The McCanns did not receive the same unequivocal exoneration:

“We believe that the main damage was caused to the McCann arguidos, who lost the possibility to prove what they have protested since they were constituted arguidos: their innocence towards the fateful event; the investigation was also disturbed, because said facts remain unclarified.”

The Supreme Court hasn’t made any judgement on the McCanns’ guilt or innocence. It merely pointed out that the McCanns cannot use the archival report to claim that they had been categorically cleared of involvement – their arguido status was lifted due to a lack of evidence and nothing could be proved either way.

Part of the McCanns’ case claimed that Amaral's book would have damaged the honour and good name of ‘any innocent person who had been cleared through the shelving of the criminal investigation’. It would have been somewhat remiss of the court not to point out that the archival report had not actually cleared them. The Supreme Court hasn’t ‘gone beyond its remit’ or made a ‘ruling’ or ignored ‘judicial impartiality’ on innocence or guilt – they have clarified a misinterpretation of a legal document by the claimants. It really is as simple as that.

So by all means carry on debating the right-to-free-expression vs. right-not-to-be-defamed angle. But please stop bashing the Portuguese legal system and (deliberately?) misinterpreting the judgement of their Supreme Court. After all, we know you would have been full of praise for them had the judgement gone the other way!

total tosh...if murat was cleared why was he reinterviewed by SY....

[MrsWuh]

Hello Davel. :) You are the reason I kept visiting this site - you're so funny! It's nice to meet you at last.

The Scotland Yard investigation has nothing to do with the Portuguese archival report. Didn't you know that?

[Alfie]

In that case you are refusing to accept the  reality of the situation  and are in a state of denial.

No that is NOT the case.  I fully accept the reality of the situation, and the fact is I think the reality of the situation stinks, and I don't accept that the judgement is just.

[Alfie]

What some still fail to comprehend is that this is an 'unsolved case'.  The courts have to take this into account in any decision  they make so no wonder they are cautious.   Amaral might be wrong, then again he might be right, this might be resolved then again it might not. This mystery could endure for ever!

The Supreme Court has ruled that the Appeal Court were correct to overturn the decision of the First Instance Court which concluded that Gonçalo Amaral did not damage the McCanns reputation and so were not entitled to damages.

And if it's proven conclusively that he was wrong, then what?

[Mr Gray]

Hello Davel. :) You are the reason I kept visiting this site - you're so funny! It's nice to meet you at last.

The Scotland Yard investigation has nothing to do with the Portuguese archival report. Didn't you know that?

If you think I am funny you certainly don't understand the evidence in this case...the SY investigation has read the files that the archiving report was based on and decided the mccanns are not suspects...that suggests they are innocent

[Alfie]

I’ve been reading this forum for a few years now, but haven’t felt inclined to join in before. But a few people have said that the Supreme Court ruling must mean that Murat is also still a suspect. This isn’t true, as the text of the final archival report does, in fact, completely clear him:

“It is nevertheless certain that through the collected evidence, said suspicions gradually emptied themselves, until the point where any connection of the arguido to the child's disappearance was set aside, which is why, at the end, the archiving of the process will be determined.”

The McCanns did not receive the same unequivocal exoneration:

“We believe that the main damage was caused to the McCann arguidos, who lost the possibility to prove what they have protested since they were constituted arguidos: their innocence towards the fateful event; the investigation was also disturbed, because said facts remain unclarified.”

The Supreme Court hasn’t made any judgement on the McCanns’ guilt or innocence. It merely pointed out that the McCanns cannot use the archival report to claim that they had been categorically cleared of involvement – their arguido status was lifted due to a lack of evidence and nothing could be proved either way.

Part of the McCanns’ case claimed that Amaral's book would have damaged the honour and good name of ‘any innocent person who had been cleared through the shelving of the criminal investigation’. It would have been somewhat remiss of the court not to point out that the archival report had not actually cleared them. The Supreme Court hasn’t ‘gone beyond its remit’ or made a ‘ruling’ or ignored ‘judicial impartiality’ on innocence or guilt – they have clarified a misinterpretation of a legal document by the claimants. It really is as simple as that.

So by all means carry on debating the right-to-free-expression vs. right-not-to-be-defamed angle. But please stop bashing the Portuguese legal system and (deliberately?) misinterpreting the judgement of their Supreme Court. After all, we know you would have been full of praise for them had the judgement gone the other way!

Murat and the McCanns legal status is identical.  You can't have one ex-arguido deemed a little less innocent than the other.  They either are all innocent or all "not cleared".

[ShiningInLuz]

Murat and the McCanns legal status is identical.  You can't have one ex-arguido deemed a little less innocent than the other.  They either are all innocent or all "not cleared".

The legal status of all ex-arguidos is indeed identical, though that tells us armchair viewers next to nothing.  As to what OG knows or believes re Mr Murat, well that would take us into speculation land.

The little I know is the OG remit says the McCanns are off-limits.  Whilst Mr Murat was re-interviewed as a witness in Dec 2014 and is a free as I am.

It is purely a personal opinion, but I would prefer to be in Mr Murat's legal situation than Kate and Gerry's legal situation.

[Mr Gray]

The legal status of all ex-arguidos is indeed identical, though that tells us armchair viewers next to nothing.  As to what OG knows or believes re Mr Murat, well that would take us into speculation land.

The little I know is the OG remit says the McCanns are off-limits.  Whilst Mr Murat was re-interviewed as a witness in Dec 2014 and is a free as I am.

It is purely a personal opinion, but I would prefer to be in Mr Murat's legal situation than Kate and Gerry's legal situation.

why...an opinion without reasoning is pointless...I would say they are both innocent as there is no real evidence against either and their  legal status is equal

[ShiningInLuz]

why...an opinion without reasoning is pointless...I would say they are both innocent as there is no real evidence against either and their  legal status is equal

Gordon Bennett.

I said "The legal status of all ex-arguidos is indeed identical".

Think holiday.  Much like I am thinking of what to have with our roast pork.

[pathfinder73]

Murat and the McCanns legal status is identical.  You can't have one ex-arguido deemed a little less innocent than the other.  They either are all innocent or all "not cleared".

Robert Murat answered all questions and didn't hide behind lawyers and it wasn't his child that disappeared. Don't you love Irony.

Robert Murat is placed under investigation and interviewed at the offices of the police in Portimão from 10am. He does not wish for the presence of a lawyer. He is the first suspect who will be declared arguido. As such, he benefits from certain rights, one of them being to remain silent. But he does not assert that right and responds to all questions put to him. Despite obvious nervousness, his statements are clear and precise. (TOTL)

[ferryman]

Robert Murat answered all questions and didn't hide behind lawyers and it wasn't his child that disappeared. Don't you love Irony.

Robert Murat is placed under investigation and interviewed at the offices of the police in Portimão from 10am. He does not wish for the presence of a lawyer. He is the first suspect who will be declared arguido. As such, he benefits from certain rights, one of them being to remain silent. But he does not assert that right and responds to all questions put to him. Despite obvious nervousness, his statements are clear and precise. (TOTL)

Ditto Gerry ....

[Brietta]

What some still fail to comprehend is that this is an 'unsolved case'.  The courts have to take this into account in any decision  they make so no wonder they are cautious.   Amaral might be wrong, then again he might be right, this might be resolved then again it might not. This mystery could endure for ever!

The Supreme Court has ruled that the Appeal Court were correct to overturn the decision of the First Instance Court which concluded that Gonçalo Amaral did not damage the McCanns reputation and so were not entitled to damages.

Lots of cases are unsolved, John.  It is fine to theorise and write books 'solving' them.

I have enjoyed reading every word of each Jack the Ripper book 'solving' the mystery and each Jack the Ripper documentary doing the same.
I have found most fascinating and plausible while believing every word of each new theory in its turn however preposterous it might be ... and when the next one appears on the shelves, I shall read and believe that one too.

There has been a lot of money made writing Ripper books.  But it doesn't matter about named prime suspects because there is no one living who can be damaged by theorising and naming names, even if descendants might be a bit miffed; although in some countries ~ Portugal for instance being one,  I believe it is possible to defame and have action taken to protect the dead.   Quote "offense to the memory of a deceased person" (art. 185; up to 6 months in prison or a fine of up 240 days).
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Defamation#Portugal

It is an entirely different matter theorising about the active case of a missing child and publishing unfounded allegations about and the naming of the prime suspects who are very much alive and trying to find their missing child.
Amaral has proclaimed himself judge and jury in a case in which monumental police errors were made initially. 
It was also a case he was responsible for coordinating.  There indeed is a man with an axe to grind.

In my opinion Portugal has acted indecently in very many aspects of Madeleine McCann’s case none more so than the tolerated declaration of death without any proof whatsoever.  Although senior judges reflecting and reinforcing the ramblings of the opinions voiced on many sceptic blog sites perhaps ranks close.

However it is an utter and absolute nonsense for judges in a civil court to take it upon themselves to voice an opinion on a criminal case in which they have no locus … one in which they have stated that to be the case. 

Their statement at the start of their judgement will not absolve them of the furore they have instigated by voicing an opinion detrimental to one of the parties in McCann v Amaral.  The proof of that may well be revealed should the McCanns decide to take their case to a competent court.

[Robittybob1]

The archiving dispatch was written by two public prosecutors who passed it to the AG the same day. His office issued a press release telling what it said;

By the dispatch of today’s date (21.07.2008 ) issued by the two magistrates of the Public Ministry competent in the case, it was decided that the inquiry relating to the disappearance of the minor Madeleine McCann will be archived due to insufficient proof of any crime having been perpetrated by the arguidos.
https://hypocriteandliar.wordpress.com/tag/gerry-and-kate-mccann/

Someone's translation is wrong.

"Insufficient proof" can not really be translated as "no evidence" .  It seems the Supreme Court was using your translation.

[G-Unit]

And if it's proven conclusively that he was wrong, then what?

If his theory is wrong so what? It's a theory.