Supreme Court rules against the McCanns in damages case.

[barrier]

I had wondered why amaral was so quiet
This is obviously why

No one saw this coming

So how do you account for his  silence then,he's seen that   curb ball.Far cleverer  than you give him credit for which is why six judges to one have been on his side.

[Mr Gray]

Well if you bash a child's brains out against a brick wall you get all that you deserve.

Al you show is that you have a very poor understanding of what justice is

[Mr Gray]

I don't recall reading anything in the judgement which claimed they were suspects.  Stating that they failed to demonstrate their innocence is a different matter.

The McCanns have the right to be considered innocent whether you like it or not
The SC do not have the right to deny them this to
It really is that simple

[Robittybob1]

The McCanns have the right to be considered innocent whether you like it or not
The SC do not have the right to deny them this to
It really is that simple

Think of how it goes.  A crime has been committed and the police investigate, they can't think everyone is innocent for someone or other is guilty.  They have to begin pointing the finger at someone.

Did the evidence that they thought pointed to the McCanns did that point to them and them only?  If it wasn't specific they have no evidence against them at all.

[Mr Gray]

Think of how it goes.  A crime has been committed and the police investigate, they can't think everyone is innocent for someone or other is guilty.  They have to begin pointing the finger at someone.

Did the evidence that they thought pointed to the McCanns did that point to them and them only?  If it wasn't specific they have no evidence against them at all.

Amaral did not understand the evidence
Apart from the dogs and the DNA which he misunderstood was he claimed there was a blood splatter on the wall
This was never confirmed as blood

[G-Unit]

The McCanns have the right to be considered innocent whether you like it or not
The SC do not have the right to deny them this to
It really is that simple

The SC didn't deny them anything except the right to argue that the archiving dispatch cleared/acquitted them. It didn't.

The judges said the investigation was archived due to insufficient evidence. The McCanns now seem to be objecting to that phrase. If the Attorney General used that phrase in his press release in 2008 they don't have a leg to stand on imo.

[Mr Gray]

The SC didn't deny them anything except the right to argue that the archiving dispatch cleared/acquitted them. It didn't.

The judges said the investigation was archived due to insufficient evidence. The McCanns now seem to be objecting to that phrase. If the Attorney General used that phrase in his press release in 2008 they don't have a leg to stand on imo.

You need to read it agin
It denies them the presumption of innocence

[G-Unit]

You need to read it agin
It denies them the presumption of innocence

Then you will be able to provide a cite showing what they said on that subject. 

[Alfie]

The Supreme Court made a judgement that there were "serious concerns" about the theory that Madeleine was abducted.  WTF was that all about then?  What position were they in to make such a judgement?

[Robittybob1]

The SC didn't deny them anything except the right to argue that the archiving dispatch cleared/acquitted them. It didn't.

The judges said the investigation was archived due to insufficient evidence. The McCanns now seem to be objecting to that phrase. If the Attorney General used that phrase in his press release in 2008 they don't have a leg to stand on imo.

Insufficient evidence to prove them guilty.  I can understand that but what evidence did they have on them at all?  Was it none?  Was there anything that was McCann specific?

The Supreme Court made a judgement that there were "serious concerns" about the evidence that was archived in the case.  WTF was that all about then?

Was that McCann specific or could it be applied to the Tapas 7 as well?  Are they being made responsible for the deeds of others?

Like a staged scene could have been staged by anyone, so they can't pin that on Kate or Gerry.
Droplets of Madeleine's blood - no one can say who caused her to bleed.

[slartibartfast]

The Supreme Court made a judgement that there were "serious concerns" about the theory that Madeleine was abducted.  WTF was that all about then?  What position were they in to make such a judgement?

One would assume they had access to all the evidence and reports of those involved in the case.

[G-Unit]

Here is the relevant passage. Once more they are arguing against the first judgement, which referred to the presumption of innocence. They appear to be questioning whether it has any relevance in a civil case as opposed to a criminal case. They conclude it has not. They do not, therefore, deny the McCanns the presumption of innocence, they merely ruled that it has no relevance in a civil case.

Page 68
But is, in this case, the protection of the appellants' rights to their good name and reputation closely related to the presumption of innocence, as said in the first instance's sentence?

First of all it has to be said that the principle of the presumption of innocence (art. 32°-2 of the CRP, 11°-1 of the UDHR and 6°-2 of the European Convention on the Human Rights) is a rule of treatment to be given to the arguido (formal suspect) throughout the judicial criminal process.

What is in discussion here is merely the civil liability of the respondents, on the grounds that they have expressed and disclosed the above-mentioned thesis/opinion on the disappearance in question.

It follows that the outcome of the present case is not such as to call into question the extra-procedural dimension of the presumption of innocence.

[Alfie]

One would assume they had access to all the evidence and reports of those involved in the case.

why would you assume that?  It wasn't part of their remit to pronounce on whether or not they thought Madeleine may have been abducted was it?

[Alfie]

Basically the SC ruled that because they had once been arguidos that they should not be allowed to considered innocent becuase the case against them was shelved.  Which is a crock of shit really when you think about it.

[Mr Gray]

Basically the SC ruled that because they had once been arguidos that they should not be allowed to considered innocent becuase the case against them was shelved.  Which is a crock of shit really when you think about it.

that is it...and by doing this they have denied the mccanns the presumtion of innocence