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

[stephen25000]

And then keep it to themselves?

The results if of relevance would be used in Court.

[Alice Purjorick]

Saying they have not been cleared is the same as saying they have not proved their innocence and implies they are still suspects which clearly they are not.  And the same judgement would also apply to Murat.  What do the sceptics think about him not being cleared?

I think the same about that as I do about Drs McCann not being cleared. The Supreme Court rules OK.
The difference is Sr Murat didn't have his advogado(a) bringing a case in court erroneously insisting the archiving process had cleared him and using that as a king pin in the action.

[Mr Gray]

I think the same about that as I do about Drs McCann not being cleared. The Supreme Court rules OK.
The difference is Sr Murat didn't have his advogado(a) bringing a case in court erroneously insisting the archiving process had cleared him and using that as a king pin in the action.

could you provide a cite where Duarte says the archiving process clears the mccanns...theres a lot of assuming going on here

[Alfie]

To use another case as an example I suppose as Cliff Rchard has not been cleared of sex assault charges (merely had the investigstion dropped due to a lack of evidence) then in Portugal,if anyone wanted to write a book about him allegedly being a habitual molester of young men then because he had not been cleared presumably he cannot be considered innocent and so is fair game to be libelled with impunity, correct?  And that is just and fair is it?

[Mr Gray]

To use another case as an example I suppose as Cliff Rchard has not been cleared of sex assault charges (merely had the investigstion dropped due to a lack of evidence) then in Portugal,if anyone wanted to write a book about him allegedly being a habitual molester of young men then because he had not been cleared presumably he cannot be considered innocent and so is fair game to be libelled with impunity, correct?  And that is just and fair is it?

absolutely just and fair by the standards the sceptics support...I think that tells us whose values are correct

[ShiningInLuz]

To use another case as an example I suppose as Cliff Rchard has not been cleared of sex assault charges (merely had the investigstion dropped due to a lack of evidence) then in Portugal,if anyone wanted to write a book about him allegedly being a habitual molester of young men then because he had not been cleared presumably he cannot be considered innocent and so is fair game to be libelled with impunity, correct?  And that is just and fair is it?

If Sir Cliff had been investigated in Portugal and had immediately breached Portuguese rules re judicial secrecy then an alternative to his version would be tellable here.  Kindly read the appeal court verdict.

Mind you, would one like to live in a country where the press are tipped off sufficiently in advance of a raid on his home that the press had time to get helicopters up to film the plod arriving?

[Robittybob1]

If Sir Cliff had been investigated in Portugal and had immediately breached Portuguese rules re judicial secrecy then an alternative to his version would be tellable here.  Kindly read the appeal court verdict.

Mind you, would one like to live in a country where the press are tipped off sufficiently in advance of a raid on his home that the press had time to get helicopters up to film the plod arriving?

How did that relate to the McCann case?

[Montclair]

could you provide a cite where Duarte says the archiving process clears the mccanns...theres a lot of assuming going on here

On page 40 of the Supreme Court's decision, among the arguments presented by Isabel Duarte in the appeal is the following:

c. Abala também a honra, o bom nome e a imagem de qualquer pessoa inocente e já inocentada por via de despacho de arquivamento do processo-crime (cuja conclusão é de que não existem quaisquer meios de prova ou indícios de comentimento por ela de quaisquer crime), um livro, um documentário e uma entrevista extravagantes a esse processo-crime, e não fazendo parte desses suportes comunicacionais sequer a menção àquele despacho de arquivamento, mas exatamente o contrário do que este postula.

c. Damage the honour, the good name and image of any innocent person and already declared innocent through the archiving report of the criminal case (the conclusion of which is that no proof or evidence exist as to the person committing any crime) a book, a documentary and an interview all extravagant about this criminal case, and not even mentioning in these communicational supports this archiving report, but instead exactly the contrary to what was said in this report.

[Brietta]

The judges appear not to have even considered the one most compelling reason why sufficient evidence could not be found against the  McCanns -  and that is because no such evidence existed to be found in the first place.   How can anyone prove the non existence of non-existent evidence? 

Quite obviously it's not possible to prove a negative and for Judges to effectively turn a blind eye to that fact - and insodoing damage the McCann's absolute right to the presumption of innocence until proved guilty, is a million miles away from what civilised societies regard as Just.   

AIMHO

I think your reasoning might be far too logical to follow for some.  Excellent post.

[Alice Purjorick]

could you provide a cite where Duarte says the archiving process clears the mccanns...theres a lot of assuming going on here

Read what I said, read what you said then read the judgement.

[Robittybob1]

On page 40 of the Supreme Court's decision, among the arguments presented by Isabel Duarte in the appeal is the following:

c. Abala também a honra, o bom nome e a imagem de qualquer pessoa inocente e já inocentada por via de despacho de arquivamento do processo-crime (cuja conclusão é de que não existem quaisquer meios de prova ou indícios de comentimento por ela de quaisquer crime), um livro, um documentário e uma entrevista extravagantes a esse processo-crime, e não fazendo parte desses suportes comunicacionais sequer a menção àquele despacho de arquivamento, mas exatamente o contrário do que este postula.

c. Damage the honour, the good name and image of any innocent person and already declared innocent through the archiving report of the criminal case (the conclusion of which is that no proof or evidence exist as to the person committing any crime) a book, a documentary and an interview all extravagant about this criminal case, and not even mentioning in these communicational supports this archiving report, but instead exactly the contrary to what was said in this report.

That is a translation of a sort but in truth it doesn't read like English to me.  You can't translate Portuguese word for word into English. 

Read what I said, read what you said then read the judgement.

These sorts of answers should be banned!  Help us out please by giving you view as well not just more homework.
Thanks.

[Alice Purjorick]

That is a translation of a sort but in truth it doesn't read like English to me.  You can translate Portuguese word for word into English. 
These sorts of answers should be banned!  Help us out please by giving you view as well not just more homework.
Thanks.

Take it up with the mangement.
The answers to the questions posed to me are to be found in my answer.
If posters are too bone idle to read in the places indicated I don't really care ? It don't get off the bump stop on my scale of importance.

[Alice Purjorick]

Murat sued those who libelled him for defamation and won.  He did not sue Amaral for the simple reason that Amaral did not defame him by writing a book about him and declaring his involvement in the death of a child.

Amaral wrote a book claiming that Madeleine McCann died in the apartment and her parents were involved in her death and disposed of her remains.
Not content with writing about them and making a career on Portuguese chat shows capitalising on his unproven and unprovable theory.

Therein lies the difference.

I am not sure how that is relevant but then I am not bleedin' clever like you innit.
I am not clever or clairvoyant enough to make rash comments like unprovable. That sounds like you may know something you should be reporting........................

[Robittybob1]

I am not sure how that is relevant but then I am not bleedin' clever like you innit.
I am not clever or clairvoyant enough to make rash comments like unprovable. That sounds like you may know something you should be reporting........................

So you can claim what you like for anything is possible.

[Robittybob1]

Take it up with the mangement.
The answers to the questions posed to me are to be found in my answer.
If posters are too bone idle to read in the places indicated I don't really care ? It don't get off the bump stop on my scale of importance.

Do you read the SC findings in Portuguese or do you read the translation?  You might have the advantage of reading the original, but to me the translation still needs to be turned into English.