Were the McCanns innocent in the eyes of the law?

[Alice Purjorick]

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.

Why? Did the judges write their judgement in English then have it translated into Portuguese?
Perhaps the punters on here don't have a clue what that particular section of the Judgement really means and are using their ignorance of the matter to have a whack at the Portugueses Supreme Court?.
Put it to the test. Take the Judgement of the Court and the consensus of the supporters, to the book makers and see what odds you get on each outcome.....

[Robittybob1]

I have read the Portuguese Judgement.

All you wish to do is twist matters to favour the McCann's.

Did you read it in Portuguese?

[ShiningInLuz]

Why? Did the judges write their judgement in English then have it translated into Portuguese?
Perhaps the punters on here don't have a clue what that particular section of the Judgement really means and are using their ignorance of the matter to have a whack at the Portugueses Supreme Court?.
Put it to the test. Take the Judgement of the Court and the consensus of the supporters, to the book makers and see what odds you get on each outcome.....

I haven't read either the Portuguese or the English versions of the judgement.  I prefer to await the next decision.

However, that Portuguese phrase is a mighty complex of saying proof of innocence.  There is a much simpler way of saying proof of evidence in Portuguese.  Hence either the judges like complex terms, or that particular term has a legal meaning that is not identical to proof of innocence.

[Mr Gray]

I haven't read either the Portuguese or the English versions of the judgement.  I prefer to await the next decision.

However, that Portuguese phrase is a mighty complex of saying proof of innocence.  There is a much simpler way of saying proof of evidence in Portuguese.  Hence either the judges like complex terms, or that particular term has a legal meaning that is not identical to proof of innocence.

We've been through all this before
Prove in a legal sense is provar
The judges used comprovar
Which Anne Guedes agreed with me does not mean proved but more
Demonstrate
Hope that helps

[ferryman]

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'.

Eh?

Of course 'not cleared'.

More accurately, never charged, and therefore never in need of being 'cleared'.

Unjustly accused.

By Portuguese (civil) law! Amaral was entitled to unjustly accuse them, and even write his accusation in a book he sold and profited from.

[Alice Purjorick]

I haven't read either the Portuguese or the English versions of the judgement.  I prefer to await the next decision.

However, that Portuguese phrase is a mighty complex of saying proof of innocence.  There is a much simpler way of saying proof of evidence in Portuguese. Hence either the judges like complex terms, or that particular term has a legal meaning that is not identical to proof of innocence.

I understood you the first time but you chose an odd way to express your meaning. It must be catching.
The law usually does express things in complex terms that are both arcane and archaic. So what's new?. They much prefer to call a spade a "horticultural implement with a long wooden hilt and rectangular ferrous blade".

 

[jassi]

I understood you the first time but you chose an odd way to express your meaning. It must be catching.
The law usually does express things in complex terms that are both arcane and archaic. So what's new?. They much prefer to call a spade a "horticultural implement with a long wooden hilt and rectangular ferrous blade".

Wheras we all know it's a bl**dy shovel   

[ferryman]

For accuracy then, the judges did not say;

"there is no evidence of innocence"

they said;

"the alluded dispatch".....couldn't "be treated as evidence of innocence"

Quite a difference in the two, isn't there?

The prosecutors were of the view that Madeleine was abducted.

[G-Unit]

The prosecutors were of the view that Madeleine was abducted.

Such a pity they didn't tell the rest of us. I thought they said they hadn't a clue. Are you reading between the lines again?

But therefore we do not possess any minimally solid and rigorous foundation in order to be able to state, with the safety that is requested, which was or were the exact and precise crime(s) that was or were practised on the person of the minor Madeleine McCann - apart from the supposed but dismissed crime of exposure or abandonment - or to hold anyone responsible over its authorship.
 http://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/PJ/LEGAL_SUMMARY.htm

[ferryman]

Such a pity they didn't tell the rest of us. I thought they said they hadn't a clue. Are you reading between the lines again?

But therefore we do not possess any minimally solid and rigorous foundation in order to be able to state, with the safety that is requested, which was or were the exact and precise crime(s) that was or were practised on the person of the minor Madeleine McCann - apart from the supposed but dismissed crime of exposure or abandonment - or to hold anyone responsible over its authorship.
 http://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/PJ/LEGAL_SUMMARY.htm

Key word emboldened:

This legal type of crime is only fulfilled with intent, and this intent has to cover the creation of danger to the victim's life, as well as the absence of a capacity to defend herself, on the victim's behalf. In the case of the files and facing the elements that were collected it is evident that none of the arguidos Gerald or Kate acted with intent. The parents could not foresee that in the resort that they chose to spend a brief holiday, they could place the life of any of their children in danger, nor was that demanded from them: it was located in a peaceful area, where most of the residents are foreign citizens of the same nationality and without any known history of this type of criminality.

The parents didn't even represent the realisation of the fact, they trusted that everything would go well, as it had gone on the previous evenings, thus not equating, nor was it demanded from them,

the possibility of the occurrence of an abduction

of any of the children that were in their respective apartments.

You know, how much clearer does anyone have to make what the prosecutors thought?

[jassi]

Key word emboldened:
 of any of the children that were in their respective apartments.

You know, how much clearer does anyone have to make what the prosecutors thought?

You missed the equally word 'possibility'   

[ferryman]

Why was that part of the prosecutor's archiving dispatch where they mocked Amaral for mimicking the style of a Holmes or a Poirot omitted from the files we read on line?

"They worked with an enormous margin of error and they achieved very little in terms of conclusive results, especially with regards to the fate of the unfortunate child."

They went on to say that the disappearance of Madeleine was not a plot from a book, but a serious crime.

"This is not, unfortunately, a police story, a crime fit for the investigative mind of a Sherlock Holmes or a Hercule Poirot, guided by the illusion that the forces of law and justice always restore order."

The prosecutors said despite the huge manhunt and inquiry, little had been achieved.

"No element of proof whatsoever was found which allows us to form any lucid, sensible, serious and honest conclusion about the circumstances (of Madeleine's disappearance).

"Including, and most dramatically, establishing whether she is alive or dead, which seems more probable." 

The prosecutors' use of the word illusion emphatically and unreservedly mocks Amaral.

[G-Unit]

Key word emboldened:
 of any of the children that were in their respective apartments.

You know, how much clearer does anyone have to make what the prosecutors thought?

Saying that the parents couldn't be expected to guard their children against abduction isn't the same as saying an abduction occurred, you know.

I'll go with my quote, I think, because it was part of their conclusions at the end of the document and it's quite clear what they mean. They don't know what crime took place.

[ferryman]

Saying that the parents couldn't be expected to guard their children against abduction isn't the same as saying an abduction occurred, you know.

I'll go with my quote, I think, because it was part of their conclusions at the end of the document and it's quite clear what they mean. They don't know what crime took place.

I am indeed the one who knows.

You are the one who needs to learn.

[ferryman]

So I suppose the answer to the opening post is that the McCanns are innocent in the eyes of Portuguese criminal law.

But Portuguese civil law regards their status as sufficiently open to question to allow a former Portuguese policeman with a proven track-record of lying to write a book, itself unquestionably riddled with lies, that impugns the reputations of Madeleine's parents, get away with it and even profit from it.