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

[Brietta]

Could someone tell me what MSM stands for please?

Main Stream Media, Robbie.

[Mr Gray]

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

As I understand it the McCanns have the right of the presumption of innocenc
added to the fact that had they been tried at the time of the archiving report they would have been found not guilty

[Mr Gray]

Main Stream Media, Robbie.

a term coined by conspiracy theorists I believe....says it all

[Robittybob1]

As I understand it the McCanns have the right of the presumption of innocence
added to the fact that had they been tried at the time of the archiving report they would have been found not guilty

It seems that the arguido status is a type of de facto sentence.  They have the presumption of innocence but no way to prove innocence.  They would have had no concept of the need of proving their innocence, but it is worth thinking about isn't it.  Don't just sit back a presume your innocence but actively prove it.

But there was nothing that could be done for there were times they were alone with the children so they will always be liable to the claim of an unsubstantiated alibi.

[Robittybob1]

Main Stream Media, Robbie.

Is wikipedia wrong then  Microsoft news?  As in http://www.msn.com

[Brietta]

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.

Beat me to it Eleanor, I'm just catching up on the threads. 

Could be wrong but I think its everything which isn't internet.  Newspapers, TV news, documentaries etc and certainly much as you say in your last sentence.

[Brietta]

Is wikipedia wrong then  Microsoft newstream?

I'd never heard of that one.  See Davel's above too.  I'd no idea that was the origin.   

[Robittybob1]

Beat me to it Eleanor, I'm just catching up on the threads. 

Could be wrong but I think its everything which isn't internet.  Newspapers, TV news, documentaries etc and certainly much as you say in your last sentence.

It seems to matter whether you write it MSM or msn.  There is Mainstream Media (MSM) or Microsoft news (msn).

[Robittybob1]

I'd never heard of that one.  See Davel's above too.  I'd no idea that was the origin.

You were right.   It was MSM not msn in your post.

[Eleanor]

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

The result was nothing to do with The PJ, and The PJ had nothing to do with the end result.

The Supreme Court of Portugal decided.

But this all has much wider implications for Portuguese Citizens.

The McCanns were just a minor blot on the landscape.

But think on about your everyday Portuguese person.  And do you think that this will not occur to them?

[Robittybob1]

The result was nothing to do with The PJ, and The PJ had nothing to do with the end result.

The Supreme Court of Portugal decided.

But this all has much wider implications for Portuguese Citizens.

The McCanns were just a minor blot on the landscape.

But think on about your everyday Portuguese person.  And do you think that this will not occur to them?

I was a bit taken back by you saying the PJ had nothing to do with the result, for wasn't it their job to find Madeleine and they failed.  They thought the McCanns did it, so they focused on them and found insufficient evidence, not no evidence, but insufficient evidence.  So what was the evidence that the PJ found?  Why did they say that evidence was attributable to the McCanns?

[Eleanor]

I was a bit taken back by you saying the PJ had nothing to do with the result, for wasn't it their job to find Madeleine and they failed.  They thought the McCanns did it, so they focused on them and found insufficient evidence, not no evidence, but insufficient evidence.  So what was the evidence that the PJ found?  Why did they say that evidence was attributable to the McCanns.

Robby, we have to stop thinking that The PJ were responsible.  It has long been out of their hands.  They were not directly involved in The Court Judgement.

The fact that The PJ cocked it up is no longer here or there.  It is now simply a matter of Law.

So often ordinary and quite caring people fixate on things that are totally irrelevant.

The Supreme Court Judges were entitled to rule on their opinion of Free Speech, but that is all.  They then overstepped the mark.
I don't have to explain.  Any half decent barrister will have spotted it a mile away.

[G-Unit]

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.....

So far I have seen no pronouncement by the judges saying 'that the McCanns have not been proved innocent'. If you have a quote for that I will stand corrected.

Isabel Duarte said in her appeal that the McCanns were cleared by the archiving of the investigation.

The judges reply was that they were not cleared by the archiving dispatch. That's all I have seen.

It is the supporters who are excited by their misunderstanding/misquoting of what was said and why. 

I am satisfied that the archiving dispatch can no longer be quoted as having 'cleared' the McCanns. It didn't.

[Mr Gray]

So far I have seen no pronouncement by the judges saying 'that the McCanns have not been proved innocent'. If you have a quote for that I will stand corrected.

Isabel Duarte said in her appeal that the McCanns were cleared by the archiving of the investigation.

The judges reply was that they were not cleared by the archiving dispatch. That's all I have seen.

It is the supporters who are excited by their misunderstanding/misquoting of what was said and why. 

I am satisfied that the archiving dispatch can no longer be quoted as having 'cleared' the McCanns. It didn't.

As their is no precise legal definition of cleared then I can say they were cleared

[stephen25000]

As their is no precise legal definition of cleared then I can say they were cleared

Perhaps they were cleared in Lego-land, but not in the Portuguese Supreme Court.