Were the McCanns innocent in the eyes of the law?

[Mr Gray]

No davel , it isn't.

I suggest you read G-Unit's response in her post following yours, and then have the good grace to admit you got it wrong.

gunit is wrong...perhaps she should have the good grace to admit it

[stephen25000]

gunit is wrong...perhaps she should have the good grace to admit it

Incorrect, as per normal.

[Mr Gray]

Incorrect, as per normal.

in your very limited opinion...perhaps gunt could answer for herself

the archiving despatch provides evidence of the mccanns innocence....fact...not opinion

[stephen25000]

in your very limited opinion...perhaps gunt could answer for herself

the archiving despatch provides evidence of the mccanns innocence....fact...not opinion

All you do is argue the toss.

You are an amateur.

You do not know Portuguese Law and if you seriously expect people other than your fellow supporters to take your comments seriously, you are mistaken.

[G-Unit]

no there is not quite a difference...

the despatch give reasons that the mccanns could be innocent and why they were removing the arguido status....that is providing evidence of innocence

Well, the judges disagree with you. It will be interesting to see who is correct; three senior Portuguese judges or one internet poster, two doctors and a libel lawyer.

[Alice Purjorick]

Has anyone bothered to run: "comprovacao da inocentacao"* through Google translate?

It comes up "proof of innocence" when I do it.

 see page 70 para 6 of SC Judgement.

[jassi]

Well, the judges disagree with you. It will be interesting to see who is correct; three senior Portuguese judges or one internet poster, two doctors and a libel lawyer.

It will indeed, though I won't risk any money on Davel's interpretation. 

I wonder how long we'll have to wait for the decision ?

[ShiningInLuz]

Has anyone bothered to run: "comprovacao da inocentacao"* through Google translate?

It comes up "proof of innocence" when I do it.

 see page 70 para 6 of SC Judgement.

Try running 'proof of innocence' into Portuguese and you get a much simpler, much more straightforward result.

Perhaps it is simply that legal judgements are couched in obscure or archaic terms.  Or perhaps it is proper legalese and has a specific meaning within Portuguese law.

[ferryman]

in your very limited opinion...perhaps gunt could answer for herself

the archiving despatch provides evidence of the mccanns innocence....fact...not opinion

It is fact, although with one proviso that, I think, needs to be brought out.

There is a criminal level of proof, and a civil level of proof.

I suspect, what these appeal-court judges held was that there was not a level of criminal 'proof' (sufficient to bring criminal charges) but (strictly in the opinion of the judges) a sufficiently high level of circumstantial evidence to make Amaral's thesis, at least theoretically possible, thus also making it permissible for him to say it, and even profit from it.

That is a highly partial, even partisan, view and the fact that the McCanns have been granted leave for yet a further appeal, when all avenues of appeal appear to have been exhausted, suggests there is some disquiet about the ruling, even in Portugal (and rightly so!)

[Mr Gray]

Has anyone bothered to run: "comprovacao da inocentacao"* through Google translate?

It comes up "proof of innocence" when I do it.

 see page 70 para 6 of SC Judgement.

Yes we have and it's been fully discussed

[stephen25000]

Yes we have and it's been fully discussed

Discussed ?


However, you will only find your fellows agreeing with you, in your distorted view of this case.

[ferryman]

The McCanns, indeed, innocent in the eyes of the law:

http://www.birminghammail.co.uk/news/midlands-news/madeleine-mccanns-parents-lose-court-12537899

[stephen25000]

The McCanns, indeed, innocent in the eyes of the law:

http://www.birminghammail.co.uk/news/midlands-news/madeleine-mccanns-parents-lose-court-12537899

The case is in Portugal, not the UK.

As to UK papers ferryman, hardly reliable.

[ShiningInLuz]

The McCanns, indeed, innocent in the eyes of the law:

http://www.birminghammail.co.uk/news/midlands-news/madeleine-mccanns-parents-lose-court-12537899

Your link says nothing re innocence or cleared.  The SC verdict was public at 1st Feb 2017 but its supporting judgement was not.  That got reported on 8 Feb, using the idea 'not cleared'.

[Alice Purjorick]

Yes we have and it's been fully discussed

By whom?
A bunch of punters who are familiar with neither the Portuguese language nor its laws and who have only a fleeting acquaintanceship with English grammar ?.
I doubt that would have been an enlightening discussion.