Supreme Court rules against the McCanns in damages case.

[G-Unit]

So the McCaans weren't witnesses then?

At the time they were arguidos, remember?

[Robittybob1]

Do you ascribe to the view that if the McCanns had said look T7 we need to do this reconstitution to help find Maddie, the T7 would have said, sorry McCanns it's not convenient?

I know Jez Wilkins was hard to contact.  Gerry tried and Jez complained.  So I don't think Jez was ever intending to attend no matter who asked him nicely.

[Robittybob1]

"could be verified through the reconstitution;.....

 and the appearance of the witnesses was requested, inviting them to be present.............Nevertheless, despite national authorities assuming all measures to render their trip to Portugal viable, for unknown motives, after the many doubts that they raised about the necessity and opportunity of their trip were clarified several times, they chose not to attend, which rendered the diligence inviable." 
That bit is a bit ambiguous for not all the T9 plus Jez refused to return to do a reconstruction.  When the write "they" it seems the judges are talking about the McCanns, but the McCanns did not refuse to go.  I still find it weird that the McCanns are made to suffer for mistakes made by other parties.

[jassi]

I know Jez Wilkins was hard to contact.  Gerry tried and Jez complained.  So I don't think Jez was ever intending to attend no matter who asked him nicely.

He was tired of being pestered by McCann. If UK police had told him he should attend, I think it likely he would have done so

[Alfie]

At the time they were arguidos, remember?

And?  They were also witnesses who were asked (not ordered) to attend the reconstitution.

[Alfie]

You will note that the judges refer to the 'witnesses' failure to appear, not the McCann's. Below are some of the concerns with the abduction theory which the reconstitution may have clarified.

Page 66

However, even in the filing order serious reservations are raised as to the likelihood of the allegation that Madeleine had been abducted. Taking into account the doubts raised by the Jane Tanner/Kate McCann version.

Those doubts that the investigation intended to see clarified by the reconstitution of the events mentioned in the closing dispatch, an initiative however that was made unfeasible by the witnesses' failure to appear after being summoned to.


From the analysis of the total of depositions that were made, the existence of important details that were not fully understood and integrated became evident;..... it was decided to carry out the "reconstitution of the fact", a diligence that is consecrated in article 150 of the Penal Process Code in the sense of duly clarifying, on the very location of the facts , the following very important details, among others:

The physical, real and effective proximity between Jane Tanner, Gerald McCann and Jeremy Wilkins, at the moment when the first person walked by them, and which coincided with the sighting of the supposed suspect, carrying a child. It results, in our perspective, strange that neither Gerald McCann nor Jeremy Wilkins saw her, or the alleged abductor, despite the exiguity of the space and the peacefulness of the area;

2 - The situation concerning the window to the bedroom where Madeleine slept, together with the twins, which was open, according to Kate. It seemed then necessary to clarify if there was a draught, since movement of the curtains and pressure under the bedroom door are mentioned, which, eventually, could be verified through the reconstitution;.....

 and the appearance of the witnesses was requested, inviting them to be present.............Nevertheless, despite national authorities assuming all measures to render their trip to Portugal viable, for unknown motives, after the many doubts that they raised about the necessity and opportunity of their trip were clarified several times, they chose not to attend, which rendered the diligence inviable.
http://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/PJ/LEGAL_SUMMARY.htm

Point 2.  The situation concerning the window (though what in Christ's name this has got to do with the case the SC judged on I have no idea) - it would not have been necessary to have ANY of the witnesses there to test the theory that a draught could have moved door and curtains, though how any reconstitution hoped to recreate the exact weather conditions of that evening is quite another matter.  But seriously what is this "serious concerns about abduction theory" all about and why did the SC judges highlight these rather lame issues which hardly raise SERIOUS concerns? 

[G-Unit]

And?  They were also witnesses who were asked (not ordered) to attend the reconstitution.

And no-one has said they refused. So what is your point?

[Alfie]

And no-one has said they refused. So what is your point?

My point is that the SC judges expressed "serious concerns" about the abduction theory - why?  Was it necessary to pass judgment on the abduction theory and in so doing imply something amiss with the McCanns' version of events? 

[slartibartfast]

My point is that the SC judges expressed "serious concerns" about the abduction theory - why?  Was it necessary to pass judgment on the abduction theory and in so doing imply something amiss with the McCanns' version of events?

To be accurate, the SC said that the filing order raised serious questions. But hey, don't let the facts get in the way of your slant.

[Robittybob1]

To be accurate, the SC said that the filing order raised serious questions. But hey, don't let the facts get in the way of your slant.

By saying that does that point a slant on their judgement too.  So did they say this because they agreed something "raised serious questions".  What exactly were the serious questions raised?

[slartibartfast]

By saying that does that point a slant on their judgement too.  So did they say this because they agreed something "raised serious questions".  What exactly were the serious questions raised?

They were not commenting on the Validity of the archiving report just that it said it.

[stephen25000]

A brief reminder, as it seems some people need it.

The Supreme Court used the original archiving report.

It was very clear cut.

Now the question remains, why didn't Duarte and the Mccann's complain then ?

Their appeal doesn't add up.

[Robittybob1]

They were not commenting on the Validity of the archiving report just that it said it.

I would be concerned that repeating it does validate it.  It seems to suggest they agree without actually saying it themselves.
If it had no relevance or meaning why was it said?

[slartibartfast]

I would be concerned that repeating it does validate it.  It seems to suggest they agree without actually saying it themselves.
If it had no relevance or meaning why was it said?

Has anyone objected to the archiving report?

[Robittybob1]

Has anyone objected to the archiving report?

Was that in 2008?  I wouldn't be sure but I could imagine Kate McCann complaining that it showed how one eyed the whole investigation was.  It would need research.  If she did there would be a mention in her book.