Supreme Court rules against the McCanns in damages case.

[ferryman]

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.

Why on earth is Pathfinder allowed to get away with this?

What he quotes was about a month before the first enquiry was shelved, when no one (least of all the deputy Chief Constable of Leicestershire Police) had read the files.  While he is not guilty of libel, Pathfinder certainly is, for repeating what the Deputy Chief Constable said without proper context.

[ShiningInLuz]

Why on earth is Pathfinder allowed to get away with this?

What he quotes was about a month before the first enquiry was shelved, when no one (least of all the deputy Chief Constable of Leicestershire Police) had read the files.  While he is not guilty of libel, Pathfinder certainly is, for repeating what the Deputy Chief Constable said without proper context.

'Fraid you've lost me.  The DCC had access to 11,000 pieces of information, of which 81 were released to the McCanns.  I make that around 10,919 pieces of information we are somewhat clueless about.

[ferryman]

'Fraid you've lost me.  The DCC had access to 11,000 pieces of information, of which 81 were released to the McCanns.  I make that around 10,919 pieces of information we are somewhat clueless about.

The police files had not been released at that point.

[jassi]

Presumably the DCC was basing his comments on information held by his own force.

[Robittybob1]

Presumably the DCC was basing his comments on information held by his own force.

That seems to be a logical conclusion.

"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."   I think the McCann team should have been happy with that statement. 
Rehashed that becomes "there is insufficient proof of any crime having been perpetrated by the McCanns". 
Would that have been enough?  For it seems that is the function of the investigators  i.e to find evidence. 
But I can see the point also that every test performed that yields a null result could be thought of as evidence in favour of the McCanns.

[Robittybob1]

The police files had not been released at that point.

Even if they are released it takes years to read them.

[G-Unit]

The police files had not been released at that point.

So the Assistant Chief Constable based his opinion on what? Complete ignorance of the evidence which had been collected in Portugal? He would have looked silly if the files had been full of clear evidence exonerating the McCanns, wouldn't he? I think LP were kept informed of events in Portugal and the ACC was speaking from a position of knowledge.

[Robittybob1]

So the Assistant Chief Constable based his opinion on what? Complete ignorance of the evidence which had been collected in Portugal? He would have looked silly if the files had been full of clear evidence exonerating the McCanns, wouldn't he? I think LP were kept informed of events in Portugal and the ACC was speaking from a position of knowledge.

You would imagine some degree of communication.

[ferryman]

Even if they are released it takes years to read them.

Exactly ....

[Robittybob1]

Exactly ....

I don't think I could ever get past David's rogatory interview.  I'd be stuck in there forever.

[Benice]

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?

The McCanns were still arguidos at the time.   No way would the ACC of Leicester police do anything which in any way inferred that UK police believed the PJ was wrong to make them arguidos  - even if they did think that.        It would have caused a diplomatic incident and damaged relations between the two police forces.   So he chose the middle 'diplomatic' road.   

IMO the McCanns were badly advised to make that request whilst they were still arguidos.

[G-Unit]

The McCanns were still arguidos at the time.   No way would the ACC of Leicester police do anything which in any way inferred that UK police believed the PJ was wrong to make them arguidos  - even if they did think that.        It would have caused a diplomatic incident and damaged relations between the two police forces.   So he chose the middle 'diplomatic' road.   

IMO the McCanns were badly advised to make that request whilst they were still arguidos.

He could have remained silent, but he chose to speak. Kate McCann gave an interesting insight into her thought processes as a result;

All of this the assistant chief constable for Leicestershire made clear in a statement written for the court. He had
come out to Portugal shortly after Madeleine’s abduction and had seen us at our most grief stricken, and yet he felt able to comment of Gerry and me in this statement: ‘While one or both of them may be innocent, there is no clear evidence that eliminates them from involvement in Madeleine’s disappearance.’ We were completely staggered. No evidence to eliminate us? [madeleine]

According to Kate, the ACC had seen their grief. Does grief equal innocence? That seems to be what she thinks, because she offers no other evidence which could eliminate them. Very faulty logic, just like her comments about Paiva;

Ricardo Paiva played a more prominent role in the interrogation this time, which did nothing to maintain my equilibrium. This was the man who had invited us to his home for dinner. Our children had played with his son. ‘
[Madeleine]

Here she is assuming that because Paiva socialised with them he should or would let that influence him when he was working.

[Benice]

He could have remained silent, but he chose to speak. Kate McCann gave an interesting insight into her thought processes as a result;

All of this the assistant chief constable for Leicestershire made clear in a statement written for the court. He had
come out to Portugal shortly after Madeleine’s abduction and had seen us at our most grief stricken, and yet he felt able to comment of Gerry and me in this statement: ‘While one or both of them may be innocent, there is no clear evidence that eliminates them from involvement in Madeleine’s disappearance.’ We were completely staggered. No evidence to eliminate us? [madeleine]

According to Kate, the ACC had seen their grief. Does grief equal innocence? That seems to be what she thinks, because she offers no other evidence which could eliminate them. Very faulty logic, just like her comments about Paiva;

Ricardo Paiva played a more prominent role in the interrogation this time, which did nothing to maintain my equilibrium. This was the man who had invited us to his home for dinner. Our children had played with his son. ‘
[Madeleine]

Here she is assuming that because Paiva socialised with them he should or would let that influence him when he was working.

I can fully understand how upsetting Kate would find that statement by the ACC in the circumstances she describes.  A very natural, human response IMO.

IMO they were wrongly advised to make a request for files while they were arguidos.   This put the UK police in a position which could have been viewed by the PJ as them 'taking sides'.   No matter what the UK police did or didn't believe privately - they had a duty to respect the PJ's decisions publicly.  And that's what they did imo.

I can also understand how upset Kate would feel about Paiava  - because she had genuinely believed that her family had a genuine, friendly relationship with him and his family.

Any normal person experiencing someone consistently being nice to their face and then suddenly stabbing them in the back - would be very unhappy with such treatment.     Why you would expect Kate to have a different reaction to anyone else - I have no idea.   

[Robittybob1]

He could have remained silent, but he chose to speak. Kate McCann gave an interesting insight into her thought processes as a result;

All of this the assistant chief constable for Leicestershire made clear in a statement written for the court. He had
come out to Portugal shortly after Madeleine’s abduction and had seen us at our most grief stricken, and yet he felt able to comment of Gerry and me in this statement: ‘While one or both of them may be innocent, there is no clear evidence that eliminates them from involvement in Madeleine’s disappearance.’ We were completely staggered. No evidence to eliminate us? [madeleine]

According to Kate, the ACC had seen their grief. Does grief equal innocence? That seems to be what she thinks, because she offers no other evidence which could eliminate them. Very faulty logic, just like her comments about Paiva;

Ricardo Paiva played a more prominent role in the interrogation this time, which did nothing to maintain my equilibrium. This was the man who had invited us to his home for dinner. Our children had played with his son. ‘
[Madeleine]

Here she is assuming that because Paiva socialised with them he should or would let that influence him when he was working.

Is that another clear understanding by Kate that there was no evidence that cleared them?  That is why I am finding it hard to believe they claimed that they were "cleared".  Maybe it is a translation problem? 

[slartibartfast]

Is that another clear understanding by Kate that there was no evidence that cleared them?  That is why I am finding it hard to believe they claimed that they were "cleared".  Maybe it is a translation problem?

Maybe they started to believe their own PR?