Supreme Court rules against the McCanns in damages case.

[stephen25000]

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.

Yes it was.

I have already suggested the Mccanns know damn well this  'appeal' is a waste of time and it is being used as a delaying tactic for them to fight back with the upcoming 10 th 'anniversary'.

[G-Unit]

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.

Wrong. They ruled that they cannot argue that the archiving dispatch cleared them. They also ruled that the presumption of innocence is related to criminal, not civil cases. That was because of what the first judge said;

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?

[G-Unit]

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

Maybe, if it was true. 

Try reading, understanding and using cites instead of relying on other's misunderstanding of the judgement.

[Mr Gray]

Maybe, if it was true. 

Try reading, understanding and using cites instead of relying on other's misunderstanding of the judgement.

you were telling us two weeks ago it was all over.....it obviously isnt

[stephen25000]

you were telling us two weeks ago it was all over.....it obviously isnt

It's a delaying tactic.

No more.

[Robittybob1]

It's a delaying tactic.

No more.

Drag it on for another 10 years!

[stephen25000]

Drag it on for another 10 years!

For the McCann's, it is something they will have to live with.

Meanwhile the case will be shelved shortly, and the Mccann's will have to pay up, even as they try to delay the outcome.

 

[Alfie]

Wrong. They ruled that they cannot argue that the archiving dispatch cleared them. They also ruled that the presumption of innocence is related to criminal, not civil cases. That was because of what the first judge said;

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?

Presumption of innocence in the case of a disappearing child would be a criminal not a civil matter so that's an irrelevant point afaic.  Why did the Supreme Court pass judgement on concerns regarding the abduction theory?

[Brietta]

It's a delaying tactic.

No more.

Do you deny every basic right the McCanns are entitled to if not by decency but by law?

It is their right to challenge an outrageous written judgement which of itself defamed them.  It is a pity you cannot take a step back and look at the likely repercussions of what these individuals said in their ruling.

There is no need to 'interpret' their meaning because they have been unashamedly unambiguous in their choice of phrase. Which has been picked up and reported verbatim in MSM and met with paroxysms of ecstasy from one end of the 'sceptic' network to the other.

Judges just cannot behave in the way these three have without their actions being called into question.

They are not a law unto themselves ... although they seem to think they are.

It is the twenty first century and Portugal is a player on the world stage as a modern democracy.  In that context the rest of the civilised world must be looking at this judgement in complete puzzlement. 

[stephen25000]

Do you deny every basic right the McCanns are entitled to if not by decency but by law?

It is their right to challenge an outrageous written judgement which of itself defamed them.  It is a pity you cannot take a step back and look at the likely repercussions of what these individuals said in their ruling.

There is no need to 'interpret' their meaning because they have been unashamedly unambiguous in their choice of phrase. Which has been picked up and reported verbatim in MSM and met with paroxysms of ecstasy from one end of the 'sceptic' network to the other.

Judges just cannot behave in the way these three have without their actions being called into question.

They are not a law unto themselves ... although they seem to think they are.

It is the twenty first century and Portugal is a player on the world stage as a modern democracy.  In that context the rest of the civilised world must be looking at this judgement in complete puzzlement.

It is a matter of opinion as to whether it is an outrageous judgement.

The McCann's, and no one else are responsible for what has happened in the court action.

They have not been denied basic rights.

Perhaps you would like to provide cites from the rest of the civilized world.

Meanwhile, as I said, it is a delaying tactic, no more, no less.

[G-Unit]

Presumption of innocence in the case of a disappearing child would be a criminal not a civil matter so that's an irrelevant point afaic.  Why did the Supreme Court pass judgement on concerns regarding the abduction theory?

Why argue about something you don't understand?

It all stems from either the first judgement's arguments or the McCann's arguments brought to the SC appeal. They are answering points, not raising them.

[barrier]

Judges just cannot behave in the way these three have without their actions being called into question.

They are not a law unto themselves ... although they seem to think they are.

It is the twenty first century and Portugal is a player on the world stage as a modern democracy.  In that context the rest of the civilised world must be looking at this judgement in complete puzzlement.

That being the case,then the McCanns and their lawyers need to go above the courts and appeal to the government,its them that make the rules,judges interpret them,there is no higher court than the Supreme one is there?

[Benice]

In his report the  AG said:

'' none of the indications that led to their constitution as arguidos was later confirmed or consolidated.''   He did not say 'some' of the indications, he said NONE of the indications.

IOW out of the whole of the evidence the PJ presented against the McCanns - none of it turned out to be viable/proved when tested/investigated and was therefore quite rightly discounted as evidence against them.

Just how SC judges can ignore the fact that none of the alleged evidence against them was upheld and make the following claim is beyond comprehension IMO.

Quote - Mirror
The court concluded that the archiving of the case should not be seen as proof the McCanns are not guilty, stating: “It doesn’t therefore seem acceptable that the ruling, based on the insufficiency of evidence, should be equated to proof of innocence.
End quote

That statement strongly infers that the judges believe there is evidence in existence which proves the McCanns guilt - it just hasn't been found.

That is an outrageous assumption to make and completely ignores the most obvious reason why no evidence has been found  by anyone against the McCanns in the last 10 years  - and that is because no such evidence exists.

It also destroys at a stroke the right to the presumption of innocence until proved guilty.

The real criminal(s) must be overjoyed.

AIMHO

[G-Unit]

Do you deny every basic right the McCanns are entitled to if not by decency but by law?

It is their right to challenge an outrageous written judgement which of itself defamed them.  It is a pity you cannot take a step back and look at the likely repercussions of what these individuals said in their ruling.

There is no need to 'interpret' their meaning because they have been unashamedly unambiguous in their choice of phrase. Which has been picked up and reported verbatim in MSM and met with paroxysms of ecstasy from one end of the 'sceptic' network to the other.

Judges just cannot behave in the way these three have without their actions being called into question.

They are not a law unto themselves ... although they seem to think they are.

It is the twenty first century and Portugal is a player on the world stage as a modern democracy.  In that context the rest of the civilised world must be looking at this judgement in complete puzzlement.

''It is their right to challenge an outrageous written judgement which of itself defamed them''.

Please could you explain why the judgement is 'outrageous' and just how it defames the McCanns?

[Alfie]

Why argue about something you don't understand?

It all stems from either the first judgement's arguments or the McCann's arguments brought to the SC appeal. They are answering points, not raising them.

kindly don't patronze me, I understand quite well enough to know that the SC judgement was cleverly calculated to inflict maximum damage on the McCanns and for that reason cannot be considered fair or just.