Portugal Supreme Court: The McCanns are not cleared in Maddie Case

[xtina]

If you read the article you will understand

what she writes ...[still has to be careful]

and what she thinks .are two different things .its clear she tars them with the same brush .....

i recon there will be more to come ...

[stephen25000]

If you read the article you will understand

How does Ms. Hopkins know what happened that night ?

[xtina]

Two bits caught my eye, Misty ...

• "The ruling also raises questions about the impartiality of the Portuguese courts ...  ... "
• "One book could be interpreted as a genuine attempt to air one’s views on aspects of the investigation, but a second looks like cashing in."

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-4213890/Detective-blamed-Maddie-s-parents-writes-second-book.html#ixzz4YLFwjSxG

the mccs ..have used the fund since the beginning .......for  there own agenda ....

it has paid mortgage fees......

extended stay in PDL.............

top lawyers...........

detective agency .......to investigate .GA............

persuing G A.............

ETC.ETC.ETC.........

not sure on what they have actually spent on the search for maddie .a lot of that was left to us tax payers...

why shouldn't G A write another book........why should he live in misery ...and destitution .......

he deserves more ...........he deserves a decent life ......he is just another victim of the mccs.....

who has tried to get to the truth ..............

they now have to reap .the seeds they sowed ......

hopefully G A will now reap the seeds he sowed ...and prosper ....

and get some happiness back in his life ...he deserves it

and hopefully will not give up ......on what happened to maddie ....
 

[G-Unit]

Frozen by the Portuguese court

Frozen by an injunction. Injunctions are issued by the court, but they can bite the applicant if they fail to prove their case;

Injunctions are serious restrictions on the respondent's rights. They are usually ordered before the merits of the parties' cases have been fully considered at trial, and the court will be concerned that it may ultimately be shown that the injunction should not have been granted when the full facts emerge.
Because of the risk of this injustice, the court is very strict about the terms on which injunctions are granted. In particular the applicant will have to promise to compensate the other party for any loss caused by the injunction being wrongly granted......... if it is later shown that the injunction should not have been granted or if the applicant fails to establish its rights at the trial.

[parapono]

it seems you could put any event in place of "death".  Nothing has been found and nothing has be ruled out.
"Fresh anguish for Madeleine McCann's parents as Portugal's supreme court insists they haven't been proved innocent over their daughter's [insert any word you like].

Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-4206214/Court-says-Madeleine-McCann-s-parents-HAVEN-T-cleared.html
It has no real meaning I believe. 
What is the reference from the SC findings that supports their announcement?

Reference is to be found in the judgement of the first instance Judge, Maria Emilia de Melo e Castro. The proved and unproved points. They still stand. The McCanns didn't appeal her findings.

[Brietta]

The case will be shelved shortly as it was before.

Missing children cases are never 'archived' and closed down in any civilised country ... every so often a closed case review results in a renewed effort to find out what may have happened to the individual concerned.

I've always been perplexed that Madeleine's case was archived and the assurance given that it would be reopened if new information came to light.
What chance of that if Ricardo Paiva ... the man left in charge of the case was assiduously filing information about Madeleine as 'not relevant to the inquiry'.

I thought that disgraceful.

After reading the court judgement in Amaral's libel trial ... I now realise I may have been viewing the archiving of Madeleine's case from entirely the wrong perspective.

Undoubtedly the ruling confirms it was the criminal case against Robert Murat and Madeleine' parents which was archived.

Was Paiva actually acting within his remit when failing to file active information concerning a missing child ... photos ~ sightings ~ information about Madeleine from other policing authorities  ... because it actually was not relevant to the inquiry.

Was the only interest in a criminal conviction ... and not the child whose fate was concluded by the operational theory decided on the fourth of May.

If so, that must have been a decision and a direction dictated by someone influential in the State ... it could very well explain the orchestration and the closing of the ranks against Madeleine's parents.
They have kept her case alive despite the State closing it down.

It would explain a lot.

[stephen25000]

Missing children cases are never 'archived' and closed down in any civilised country ... every so often a closed case review results in a renewed effort to find out what may have happened to the individual concerned.

I've always been perplexed that Madeleine's case was archived and the assurance given that it would be reopened if new information came to light.
What chance of that if Ricardo Paiva ... the man left in charge of the case was assiduously filing information about Madeleine as 'not relevant to the inquiry'.

I thought that disgraceful.

After reading the court judgement in Amaral's libel trial ... I now realise I may have been viewing the archiving of Madeleine's case from entirely the wrong perspective.

Undoubtedly the ruling confirms it was the criminal case against Robert Murat and Madeleine' parents which was archived.

Was Paiva actually acting within his remit when failing to file active information concerning a missing child ... photos ~ sightings ~ information about Madeleine from other policing authorities  ... because it actually was not relevant to the inquiry.

Was the only interest in a criminal conviction ... and not the child whose fate was concluded by the operational theory decided on the fourth of May.

If so, that must have been a decision and a direction dictated by someone influential in the State ... it could very well explain the orchestration and the closing of the ranks against Madeleine's parents.
They have kept her case alive despite the State closing it down.

It would explain a lot.

You haven't got an evidence as to what happened to Madeleine Mccann.

Your bias to the McCann's , well known.

..and if you are suggesting a conspiracy against her parents, that is truly laughable.

[Brietta]

You haven't got an evidence as to what happened to Madeleine Mccann.

Your bias to the McCann's , well known.

..and if you are suggesting a conspiracy against her parents, that is truly laughable.

I have laid out my train of thought on this aspect of the interpretation of a criminal case by judges dealing with a civil defamation case.

What suggestion can you come up with after due consideration, that refutes what I have said?

Exactly what case was Archived and what case just vanished out of the reckoning entirely.  Paiva seemed to know exactly what case he was dealing with and in my opinion ... it was not Madeleine McCann's.

From 2008 until 2010 incoming information on Madeleine McCann was being filed as irrelevant ... exactly which inquiry was it irrelevant to?

If you have any thoughts on the actual content of my post, please say so.  Tedious and predictable one liners from you are something else ... maybe I should put that my bias towards the McCanns is well known into my signature to save you the constant repitition.

[stephen25000]

I have laid out my train of thought on this aspect of the interpretation of a criminal case by judges dealing with a civil defamation case.

What suggestion can you come up with after due consideration, that refutes what I have said?

Exactly what case was Archived and what case just vanished out of the reckoning entirely.  Paiva seemed to know exactly what case he was dealing with and in my opinion ... it was not Madeleine McCann's.

From 2008 until 2010 incoming information on Madeleine McCann was being filed as irrelevant ... exactly which inquiry was it irrelevant to?

If you have any thoughts on the actual content of my post, please say so.  Tedious and predictable one liners from you are something else ... maybe I should put that my bias towards the McCanns is well known into my signature to save you the constant repitition.

As I said, we do not agree, and will not do.

As to your personal attack against me, quite predictable and par for the course.

You need to comprehend, that nothing you type

 on here, will make the slightest difference to the case.

You may, if only once, explain why you have never as far as I can see, criticized the McCann's for their actions in Portugal.

Not that I expect an answer.

..and yes, place it on your signature.

[faithlilly]

Missing children cases are never 'archived' and closed down in any civilised country ... every so often a closed case review results in a renewed effort to find out what may have happened to the individual concerned.

I've always been perplexed that Madeleine's case was archived and the assurance given that it would be reopened if new information came to light.
What chance of that if Ricardo Paiva ... the man left in charge of the case was assiduously filing information about Madeleine as 'not relevant to the inquiry'.

I thought that disgraceful.

After reading the court judgement in Amaral's libel trial ... I now realise I may have been viewing the archiving of Madeleine's case from entirely the wrong perspective.

Undoubtedly the ruling confirms it was the criminal case against Robert Murat and Madeleine' parents which was archived.

Was Paiva actually acting within his remit when failing to file active information concerning a missing child ... photos ~ sightings ~ information about Madeleine from other policing authorities  ... because it actually was not relevant to the inquiry.

Was the only interest in a criminal conviction ... and not the child whose fate was concluded by the operational theory decided on the fourth of May.

If so, that must have been a decision and a direction dictated by someone influential in the State ... it could very well explain the orchestration and the closing of the ranks against Madeleine's parents.
They have kept her case alive despite the State closing it down.

It would explain a lot.

Same old bag of tricks. Just becoming more shabby and threadbare as the years pass.

[Brietta]

Same old bag of tricks. Just becoming more shabby and threadbare as the years pass.

Abuse of an opinion with which you differ without defending your position rather reveals that you have no counter argument.

Exactly why did Ricardo Paiva maintained a file of incoming information labelled as ~ Not Relevant To The Investigation?

Wouldn't you like to know the answer to that one?  Probably not. 

[faithlilly]

Abuse of an opinion with which you differ without defending your position rather reveals that you have no counter argument.

Exactly why did Ricardo Paiva maintained a file of incoming information labelled as ~ Not Relevant To The Investigation?

Wouldn't you like to know the answer to that one?  Probably not.

Perhaps they had been looked at and 'weren't relevant to the investigation' ? Too simple?

[Mr Gray]

In view of Stephens post Being able to stand I would say that many of the sceptics here do not care about justice for Maddie but are here just to post their vitriol to her parents

[Mr Gray]

How does Ms. Hopkins know what happened that night ?

How does amaral know what happened that night
All the evidence he based his conclusions on are flawed

[stephen25000]

How does amaral know what happened that night
All the evidence he based his conclusions on are flawed

In your irrelevant and biased opinion.

By the way, he still knows more about the case than you ever will.