Supreme Court rules against the McCanns in damages case.

[stephen25000]

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

What real criminals ?

There is no evidence that there was anyone in the apartment that night, other than those known to be there.

[Alfie]

if the McCanns cannot be comsidered innocent then what is their lawful status, currently?  Not innocent?  Is that a thing?

[G-Unit]

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

First of all, the Attorney General wrote no report. If you are referring to the Legal Summary it was not written by the Attorney General.

All the AG did was issue a press release which appears to have 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/

[barrier]

What real criminals ?

There is no evidence that there was anyone in the apartment that night, other than those known to be there.

The ones that SY keep eliminating.710 as of  the last official statement back in Oct 2015

[Alfie]

First of all, the Attorney General wrote no report. If you are referring to the Legal Summary it was not written by the Attorney General.

All the AG did was issue a press release which appears to have 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/

Can you not find a better source than a blog entitled "hypocriteandliar", one which is chockablock with libellous posts?

[faithlilly]

Why in heaven's name would the SC judges wish to inflict any more damage on the McCanns than they have already suffered? Why do supporters think this was personal?

[G-Unit]

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.

If you understand the judgement why do your posts misrepresent what it said? Is that deliberate?

Now you are saying, in effect, that three judges of the Portuguese Supreme Court plotted to inflict damage on the McCanns. That is an amazing accusation to make without any evidence to support it. Unless you have evidence, that is?

[G-Unit]

Can you not find a better source than a blog entitled "hypocriteandliar", one which is chockablock with libellous posts?

Perhaps you can?

[Alfie]

If you understand the judgement why do your posts misrepresent what it said? Is that deliberate?

Now you are saying, in effect, that three judges of the Portuguese Supreme Court plotted to inflict damage on the McCanns. That is an amazing accusation to make without any evidence to support it. Unless you have evidence, that is?

The evidence is 76 pages long and it's on this forum somewhere. 

[Alfie]

Perhaps you can?

I could, but I'm not the one supplying the cite.  You have by linking to a highly libellous blog which you KNOW is against forum rules.  Perhaps since the SC ruling you think it doesn't matter so much now, eh?

[stephen25000]

Can the McCann supporters on here answer a simple question.

What would have happened to Amaral's book , if the Mccann's hadn't given it publicity by their court actions ?

[G-Unit]

The evidence is 76 pages long and it's on this forum somewhere.

If you think that a written judgement which you don't agree with is evidence that three SC judges plotted to damage the McCanns you don't understand the meaning of evidence.

[Robittybob1]

If you think that a written judgement which you don't agree with is evidence that three SC judges plotted to damage the McCanns you don't understand the meaning of evidence.

It appears as frivolous damaging evidence to me.
Looks like we need to go through it sentence by sentence.

[G-Unit]

It appears as frivolous damaging evidence to me.
Looks like we need to go through it sentence by sentence.

Giving an opinion on something that hasn't been read sentence by sentence seems frivolous to me.

[Alfie]

If you think that a written judgement which you don't agree with is evidence that three SC judges plotted to damage the McCanns you don't understand the meaning of evidence.

Can I ask you: does the SC judgement give you absolutely no reason to believe that the judges have implied at any point that the McCanns may not actually be innocent and that the abduction theory causes them serious concerns?