Supreme Court rules against the McCanns in damages case.

[Robittybob1]

Well who's words opinions are these?  Page 66
"However, even in the filing dispatch serious reservations are raised as to the likelihood of the allegation that Madeleine had been abducted, in view of the doubts raised by the Jane Tanner/Kate McCann version.

The investigation intended to see clarified those doubts 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."

[jassi]

Well who's words opinions are these?  Page 66
"However, even in the filing dispatch serious reservations are raised as to the likelihood of the allegation that Madeleine had been abducted, in view of the doubts raised by the Jane Tanner/Kate McCann version.

The investigation intended to see clarified those doubts 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."

Am I right in assuming that the 'filing dispatch' is the archiving report?

If so Amaral had nothing to do with that so they aren't his words.

[G-Unit]

Well who's words opinions are these?  Page 66
"However, even in the filing dispatch serious reservations are raised as to the likelihood of the allegation that Madeleine had been abducted, in view of the doubts raised by the Jane Tanner/Kate McCann version.

The investigation intended to see clarified those doubts 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."

Well done, they are the words of the SC judges. Would you describe them as referring to 'the present' as davel asserted, or to the past, as they are referring to something written in 2008?

[Robittybob1]

Am I right in assuming that the 'filing dispatch' is the archiving report?

If so Amaral had nothing to do with that so they aren't his words.

Yes but the Filing Dispatch is not being quoted but an assessment is being made of it.  So this statement is from a judge.

[pathfinder73]

Well I didn't know that actually.  I could imagine they were relieved that they felt cleared.  They may have felt cleared then even if they have now been told they weren't cleared.
I am reading the chapter "Closing the case" and it doesn't read that the McCanns were cheered by that fact.  I'll see if the text is on the internet later.

They knew they were not cleared.

“While one or both of them may be innocent, there is no clear evidence that eliminates them from involvement in Madeleine's disappearance.” - Said by the Assistant Chief Constable of Leicestershire, in an official submission of Leicester Police to the Family Division of the High Court.

July 2008

Due to the fact that Kate and Gerry place their daughter's case under the guardianship of the High Court, judge Justice Hogg ordered, one month ago, for any relevant information to locate the little girl should be made available to the McCanns, including documents from the English police. The Leicestershire police defied the judge's order and did not comply. Thus, yesterday's session was scheduled. A deal was reached.  Leicestershire police agreed to deliver 81 files out of a total of 11 thousand. Each one of those 81 files contains the name of a witness, his or her contact and a summary of the information that was given. Since yesterday, the McCanns' lawyers and the private detectives at the couple's service can contact those witnesses and again follow leads that were already investigated by the English police.

"The decision from the British justice says a lot about the power and the influence that the McCanns hold", a source from the Polícia Judiciária commented to 24horas. The same source remembers that the secrecy of justice is not at issue "because the files that were released by the Leicestershire police were not shared with the PJ at the level of judiciary cooperation and are not very relevant".

Mr James Lewis QC, for the Chief Constable of Leicestershire:

We would like you to approve the Order. As the Court heard, any person served with the Order should disclose any information that would help to find Madeleine. We wish to make it clear that the primary aim is to ensure that no stone is left unturned.

There must be a balance between the rights of Plaintiffs to have as much information as possible and the risk of compromising the continuing criminal investigation, damaging future international co-operation, and a potential breach of Portuguese law. The parents get information that emanates from them and there is no breach of Portuguese law.

The Chief Constable asks the Court to make clear that previous Orders don't apply. The case is not closed. The Chief Constable wishes to reiterate anyone with information should come forward to the police. The amount of information is 81 pieces of information out of 11,000 pieces of information on the computer system.

[Robittybob1]

They knew they were not cleared.

“While one or both of them may be innocent, there is no clear evidence that eliminates them from involvement in Madeleine's disappearance.” - Said by the Assistant Chief Constable of Leicestershire, in an official submission of Leicester Police to the Family Division of the High Court.

July 2008

Due to the fact that Kate and Gerry place their daughter's case under the guardianship of the High Court, judge Justice Hogg ordered, one month ago, for any relevant information to locate the little girl should be made available to the McCanns, including documents from the English police. The Leicestershire police defied the judge's order and did not comply. Thus, yesterday's session was scheduled. A deal was reached.  Leicestershire police agreed to deliver 81 files out of a total of 11 thousand. Each one of those 81 files contains the name of a witness, his or her contact and a summary of the information that was given. Since yesterday, the McCanns' lawyers and the private detectives at the couple's service can contact those witnesses and again follow leads that were already investigated by the English police.

"The decision from the British justice says a lot about the power and the influence that the McCanns hold", a source from the Polícia Judiciária commented to 24horas. The same source remembers that the secrecy of justice is not at issue "because the files that were released by the Leicestershire police were not shared with the PJ at the level of judiciary cooperation and are not very relevant".

Mr James Lewis QC, for the Chief Constable of Leicestershire:

We would like you to approve the Order. As the Court heard, any person served with the Order should disclose any information that would help to find Madeleine. We wish to make it clear that the primary aim is to ensure that no stone is left unturned.

There must be a balance between the rights of Plaintiffs to have as much information as possible and the risk of compromising the continuing criminal investigation, damaging future international co-operation, and a potential breach of Portuguese law. The parents get information that emanates from them and there is no breach of Portuguese law.

The Chief Constable asks the Court to make clear that previous Orders don't apply. The case is not closed. The Chief Constable wishes to reiterate anyone with information should come forward to the police. The amount of information is 81 pieces of information out of 11,000 pieces of information on the computer system.

And Kate says much the same in her book.  So why did they argue differently in Court?

[stephen25000]

And Kate says much the same in her book.  So why did they argue differently in Court?

Are you kidding.

They expected an easy victory over Amaral in the Court.

The McCann's treated the Portuguese like a third world country.

[Robittybob1]

Are you kidding.

They expected an easy victory over Amaral in the Court.

The McCann's treated the Portuguese like a third world country.

You have sidestepped the question.

[pathfinder73]

And Kate says much the same in her book.  So why did they argue differently in Court?

The Portuguese are in charge of this case not the McCanns but they still fight on.

[Robittybob1]

The Portuguese are in charge of this case not the McCanns but they still fight on.

And so they should.

[stephen25000]

And so they should.

Need I remind you Rob, the Mccann's are responsible for this case.

Do you know how much monry they have spent on 'searching' compared to that spent on legal action ?

[pathfinder73]

And so they should.

The British government's Foreign & Commonwealth Office also made their view clear, post-arguido, in December 2009, when responding to a Freedom of Information request about the missing child, Ben Needham. They wrote: 'You will also be aware of the Madeleine McCann case. Both this and the Needham case are categorised as a missing persons, rather than child abduction cases, as there is no evidence in either case to support whether the children were or were not abducted.'

[Robittybob1]

Need I remind you Rob, the Mccann's are responsible for this case.

Do you know how much monry they have spent on 'searching' compared to that spent on legal action ?

Does it matter?  I often worry about the way I have wasted my money too, but that is how it goes with some people.

[G-Unit]

And Kate says much the same in her book.  So why did they argue differently in Court?

Apparently in their 'complaint' Duarte says;

“The appellants understand the archiving of the case took place because during the inquiry, sufficient evidence had been collected to show the ‘arguidos’ had not committed any crime.”

Although the Attorney General said in 2008;

"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."

And the Assistant Chief Constable of Leicester Police said in 2008;

“While one or both of them may be innocent, there is no clear evidence that eliminates them from involvement in Madeleine's disappearance.”

It seems the appellant's understanding differs from that of those better qualified to judge, including Portugal's senior judges, but that's nothing new, is it?

[slartibartfast]

Apparently in their 'complaint' Duarte says;

“The appellants understand the archiving of the case took place because during the inquiry, sufficient evidence had been collected to show the ‘arguidos’ had not committed any crime.”

Although the Attorney General said in 2008;

"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."

And the Assistant Chief Constable of Leicester Police said in 2008;

“While one or both of them may be innocent, there is no clear evidence that eliminates them from involvement in Madeleine's disappearance.”

It seems the appellant's understanding differs from that of those better qualified to judge, including Portugal's senior judges, but that's nothing new, is it?

Right, so the AG said in 2008. So FM was wrong.