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

[ShiningInLuz]

I thought it was supposed to be Thursday 2nd, but like you have no cite

The judgement 'leaked' on Tue 31st Jan, along with the info that the ruling would be released on Thu.  I also took it to mean Thu 2nd, but we sardine-munchers in Portugal never move that fast.

The relevant info will be somewhere near the start of this thread, but for the moment my priority is my second attempt at beef bourguigon.  I need to get the tomato paste and mushrooms into the casserole.

[Alice Purjorick]

It's actually a fairly decent article, having read the lot.  Even The Sun has come up with a fairly accurate article.

The Daily Mail headline is anything but accurate.

I bet there are newspaper editors sitting with their lawyers poring over the judgement for reasons other than " we best be careful what we print".

[Mr Gray]

Any glee is due to MSM reporting the findings of the Supreme Court, something most of us thought would never happen.

Then it just shows how misguided you are

[Robittybob1]

I think the "clearing" was part of the McCann's argument in the case hence it came into the decision.

I hope to read the bit that covers their point of view. 

[Robittybob1]

Was there an expectation that MSM would not report the findings of the supreme court?

Could someone tell me what MSM stands for please?

[Alice Purjorick]

Could someone tell me what MSM stands for please?

Methylsulfonylmethane

[Robittybob1]

Methylsulfonylmethane

Good one!
OK I'll do it myself.  The Microsoft Network

[slartibartfast]

The judgement 'leaked' on Tue 31st Jan, along with the info that the ruling would be released on Thu.  I also took it to mean Thu 2nd, but we sardine-munchers in Portugal never move that fast.

The relevant info will be somewhere near the start of this thread, but for the moment my priority is my second attempt at beef bourguigon.  I need to get the tomato paste and mushrooms into the casserole.

I think "leaked" is misleading, the court reported the result of the case as per it's standard procedure.

[Robittybob1]

I hope to read the bit that covers their point of view.

I was getting hints from the SC ruling that they thought what Amaral had done was illegal.  Maybe the Portuguese Police will make a claim against him for using his insider knowledge of the case illegally.

[Eleanor]

Could someone tell me what MSM stands for please?

Main Stream Media.  But don't ask me what that means because I don't know.  However, it probably means any old shite that any old shite feels like reporting, on  bad day.

[Eleanor]

I was getting hints from the SC ruling that they thought what Amaral had done was illegal.  Maybe the Portuguese Police will make a claim against him for using his insider knowledge of the case illegally.

No chance.     Amaral asked if he could release his book while still working for The PJ, but they said No.  Which is why he chose to retire.

[Robittybob1]

No chance.     Amaral asked if he could release his book while still working for The PJ, but they said No.  Which is why he chose to retire.

In my profession even retirement would not allow you to become public with insider knowledge.  OK they seem to make some sort of excuses on his behalf but I doubt whether it was the intention of the PJ to allow the case to be reviewed this way.  I'll have to read parts of it again to really understand what is being said.

[Mr Gray]

The part that is getting the sceptics excited is the statement that the McCannns have not been proved innocent
innocent of what as they have not been charged with anything and there is no mechanism to prove innocence......

Ithink by stating this the supreme court have made it likely that the McCans will go to the ECHR.....

[Eleanor]

In my profession even retirement would not allow you to become public with insider knowledge.  OK they seem to make some sort of excuses on his behalf but I doubt whether it was the intention of the PJ to allow the case to reviewed this way.  I'll have to read parts of it again to really understand what is being said.

I don't think that The PJ were in any position to stop him.  How could they have been?  Amaral asked if he could release his book while still working for them, and they said NO.  So he chose to retire.

Hopefully, The PJ were thankful for that, although I don't really know.

Someone did say that making The McCanns Arguidos was a bit hasty, but I can never remember his name.  And besides, we now all know that The Law pertaining to the Arguidos Status did change only three days later.

And before anyone asks, No, i don't have a Cite, and can't be bothered to look for one.  Anyone who has been at this for as long as I have will know that what I say is true.

[Robittybob1]

The part that is getting the sceptics excited is the statement that the McCanns have not been proved innocent
innocent of what as they have not been charged with anything and there is no mechanism to prove innocence......

Ithink by stating this the supreme court have made it likely that the McCanns will go to the ECHR.....

I don't think anyone can solve this dilema.  Even the ECHR will not be able to resolve it.

I don't think that The PJ were in any position to stop him.  How could they have been?  Amaral asked if he could release his book while still working for them, and they said NO.  So he chose to retire.

Hopefully, The PJ were thankful for that, although I don't really know.

Someone did say that making The McCanns Arguidos was a bit hasty, but I can never remember his name.  And besides, we now all know that The Law pertaining to the Arguidos Status did change only three days later.

And before anyone asks, No, i don't have a Cite, and can't be bothered to look for one.  Anyone who has been at this for as long as I have will know that what I say is true.

You might be right for what more could they do.  They could ban his book and get the courts to hold the proceeds as the McCanns did.
Problem for the McCanns was that their arguments seem to have been unproven.