« previous next »
Pages: 1 2 [3] 4 5 ... 10   Go Down

Author Topic: Duty of Reserve.  (Read 22012 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline Alice Purjorick

Re: Duty of Reserve.
« Reply #30 on: March 11, 2017, 02:37:42 PM »
Quote from: G-Unit on March 11, 2017, 12:23:09 PM
Your highly admired first instance judge didn't feel able to say that Amaral's book was full of lies which lowered the McCann's reputations. Probably because she decided it wasn't and it didn't, don't you think?

That is the part I find baffling. The First Instance Judge rejected 60 percent of the claim then made an arcane, seeming incorrect judgement [ two plays one], on the other 40 percent.
Logged
"Navigating the difference between weird but normal grief and truly suspicious behaviour is the key for any detective worth his salt.". ….Sarah Bailey

Offline John

Re: Duty of Reserve.
« Reply #31 on: March 11, 2017, 02:50:36 PM »
Quote from: Brietta on March 11, 2017, 12:42:57 PM
What judge Maria Emília de Melo e Castro did say was, " The fact they are innocent ... " which appears to be at variance with the final ruling of the appeal court judges and possibly why she got it right and they appear to have overstepped the mark and getting it wrong.

It depends on the interpretation.  A suspect is entitled to the presumption of innocence and that is what the honourable Maria Emilia de Memo e Castro was alluding to, nothing more.  This could be the very reason why the Supreme Court decided to make the statement they did concerning this in their judgement.
« Last Edit: March 11, 2017, 05:55:00 PM by John »
Logged
A malicious prosecution for a crime which never existed. An exposé of egregious malfeasance by public officials.
Indeed, the truth never changes with the passage of time.

Offline Alice Purjorick

Re: Duty of Reserve.
« Reply #32 on: March 11, 2017, 02:52:51 PM »
Quote from: John on March 11, 2017, 02:50:36 PM
It depends on the interpretation.  A suspect is entitled to the presumption of innocence and that is what the honourable Maria Emilia de Memo e Castro was alluding to, nothing more.

The fact that it is the final judgement that takes precedence should also be considered.
Logged
"Navigating the difference between weird but normal grief and truly suspicious behaviour is the key for any detective worth his salt.". ….Sarah Bailey

Offline Robittybob1

Re: Duty of Reserve.
« Reply #33 on: March 11, 2017, 04:48:14 PM »
Quote from: G-Unit on March 11, 2017, 11:29:41 AM
He was not a member of the PJ when his book was published.
Why because he was retired, resigned or whatever.  That is not how the courts saw it.  Even though he had resigned he was still under their  influence.  I forget the words they used, but it is in the first instance judgement I believe.
Logged
Moderation
John has instructed all moderators to take a very strong line with posters who constantly breach the rules of this forum.  This sniping, goading, name calling and other various forms of disruption will cease.

Offline Robittybob1

Re: Duty of Reserve.
« Reply #34 on: March 11, 2017, 04:51:54 PM »
Quote from: John on March 11, 2017, 11:36:37 AM
Anything is possible I suppose.  Amaral knew the rules in respect of a duty of reserve and the consequences of breaching them.  I don't think even he would be so foolish as to tread on thin ice where Portuguese Law is concerned.
Walking on ice safely (just the thought of it scares me) depends on the thickness. 
Logged
Moderation
John has instructed all moderators to take a very strong line with posters who constantly breach the rules of this forum.  This sniping, goading, name calling and other various forms of disruption will cease.

Offline Robittybob1

Re: Duty of Reserve.
« Reply #35 on: March 11, 2017, 04:54:41 PM »
Quote from: John on March 11, 2017, 12:09:53 PM
Even if they were a pack of lies, as yet undetermined, he wasn't the only one practising the art.
Shouldn't the SC have assessed whether GA was telling a pack of lies before they backed him?
Logged
Moderation
John has instructed all moderators to take a very strong line with posters who constantly breach the rules of this forum.  This sniping, goading, name calling and other various forms of disruption will cease.

Offline slartibartfast

Re: Duty of Reserve.
« Reply #36 on: March 11, 2017, 04:56:29 PM »
Quote from: Robittybob1 on March 11, 2017, 04:54:41 PM
Shouldn't the SC have assessed whether GA was telling a pack of lies before they backed him?

Please be aware that accusing someone of telling a pack of lies without proof is libel. Do not do it again.
Logged
“Reasoning will never make a Man correct an ill Opinion, which by Reasoning he never acquired”.

Offline Robittybob1

Re: Duty of Reserve.
« Reply #37 on: March 11, 2017, 04:58:25 PM »
Quote from: G-Unit on March 11, 2017, 12:23:09 PM
Your highly admired first instance judge didn't feel able to say that Amaral's book was full of lies which lowered the McCann's reputations. Probably because she decided it wasn't and it didn't, don't you think?
She does appeared to be sucked in to Amaral's version of the truth.  The fact that in her report the list of his truths appears 6 times seems to more than confirm that.
Logged
Moderation
John has instructed all moderators to take a very strong line with posters who constantly breach the rules of this forum.  This sniping, goading, name calling and other various forms of disruption will cease.

Offline Robittybob1

Re: Duty of Reserve.
« Reply #38 on: March 11, 2017, 05:00:31 PM »
Quote from: Slartibartfast on March 11, 2017, 04:56:29 PM
Please be aware that accusing someone of telling a pack of lies without proof is libel. Do not do it again.
"Shouldn't the SC have assessed whether GA was telling a pack of lies before they backed him?"  That is a question not a statement. 
Logged
Moderation
John has instructed all moderators to take a very strong line with posters who constantly breach the rules of this forum.  This sniping, goading, name calling and other various forms of disruption will cease.

Offline Robittybob1

Re: Duty of Reserve.
« Reply #39 on: March 11, 2017, 05:16:01 PM »
Quote from: Alice Purjorick on March 11, 2017, 02:37:42 PM
That is the part I find baffling. The First Instance Judge rejected 60 percent of the claim then made an arcane, seeming incorrect judgement [ two plays one], on the other 40 percent.
That is fair.  She only took away what she had considered they had illegally gained.
« Last Edit: March 11, 2017, 05:22:31 PM by Robittybob1 »
Logged
Moderation
John has instructed all moderators to take a very strong line with posters who constantly breach the rules of this forum.  This sniping, goading, name calling and other various forms of disruption will cease.

Offline Robittybob1

Re: Duty of Reserve.
« Reply #40 on: March 11, 2017, 05:33:35 PM »
Quote from: ferryman on March 11, 2017, 05:31:47 PM
Yes, they should, particularly as he was imo.
And do you have the proof he was, so it isn't libel?

Quote from: Robittybob1 on March 11, 2017, 04:48:14 PM
Why because he was retired, resigned or whatever.  That is not how the courts saw it.  Even though he had resigned he was still under their  influence.  I forget the words they used, but it is in the first instance judgement I believe.
For completeness sake:
"Page 43

The criminal investigation officers, retired for various reasons of disciplinary penalty application, retain special rights, being holders of an identification card for recognition of their quality and the rights they enjoy [paragraphs 1 and and 2 of article 149 of the Organic Law of the Judicial Police and Ordinance No. 96/2002 of 31 January].

The statute of the retirement [approved by Decree-Law 498/72 of 9 December] establishes, from its original wording in the respective artº 74, paragraph 1, that the retired, apart from his right to a retirement pension, remains bound to the civil service, keeping the titles and the category of the position he held and the rights and duties that do not depend on being in activity."  http://miscarriageofjustice.co/index.php?topic=6307.0
« Last Edit: March 11, 2017, 05:53:27 PM by John »
Logged
Moderation
John has instructed all moderators to take a very strong line with posters who constantly breach the rules of this forum.  This sniping, goading, name calling and other various forms of disruption will cease.

Offline John

Re: Duty of Reserve.
« Reply #41 on: March 11, 2017, 05:50:14 PM »
Quote from: Robittybob1 on March 11, 2017, 04:54:41 PM
Shouldn't the SC have assessed whether GA was telling a pack of lies before they backed him?

As the first instance Judge pointed out, it is not her job to determine the investigation.
Logged
A malicious prosecution for a crime which never existed. An exposé of egregious malfeasance by public officials.
Indeed, the truth never changes with the passage of time.

ferryman

  • Guest
Re: Duty of Reserve.
« Reply #42 on: March 11, 2017, 05:51:48 PM »
Quote from: Robittybob1 on March 11, 2017, 05:33:35 PM
And do you have the proof he was, so it isn't libel?
For completeness sake:
"Page 43

The criminal investigation officers, retired for various reasons of disciplinary penalty application, retain special rights, being holders of an identification card for recognition of their quality and the rights they enjoy [paragraphs 1 and and 2 of article 149 of the Organic Law of the Judicial Police and Ordinance No. 96/2002 of 31 January].

The statute of the retirement [approved by Decree-Law 498/72 of 9 December] establishes, from its original wording in the respective artº 74, paragraph 1, that the retired, apart from his right to a retirement pension, remains bound to the civil service, keeping the titles and the category of the position he held and the rights and duties that do not depend on being in activity."  http://miscarriageofjustice.co/index.php?topic=6307.0

Have added an edit to my post above, Rob.
Logged

Offline John

Re: Duty of Reserve.
« Reply #43 on: March 11, 2017, 05:53:00 PM »
Quote from: ferryman on March 11, 2017, 05:31:47 PM
Yes, they should, particularly as he was imo.

From The book of many lies (Chapter 16)

The clos-est to that is an exhibit given the name for the enquiry jar/6, identified by a worker on the ground at haut de la garenne as, potentially, a fragment of human skull and reacted to by Eddie.

Formally examined at a laboratory in Oxford and determined to be a piece of coconut.

No bodies under any flagstone; nor any such claim made by Grime (or anyone else, apart from Amaral).

At least by English libel law, the libel there lies in insinuation by association: you associate a dog involved in the enquiry with 'discovering bodies' at a place where paedophiles are supposed to have murdered children in their care, and the taint of association transfers over to those (accused) at the centre of a completely different investigation.

He was misinformed ferryman just as he was by the FSS initially as to the significance of the dna results.
« Last Edit: March 11, 2017, 06:01:33 PM by John »
Logged
A malicious prosecution for a crime which never existed. An exposé of egregious malfeasance by public officials.
Indeed, the truth never changes with the passage of time.

Offline Mr Gray

Re: Duty of Reserve.
« Reply #44 on: March 11, 2017, 05:54:53 PM »
Quote from: John on March 11, 2017, 05:53:00 PM
He was misinformed ferryman just as he was by the FSS initially.

there is no evidence amaral was misinformed by the FSS....theres evidence he did not understand the dna report
Logged
Pages: 1 2 [3] 4 5 ... 10   Go Up
« previous next »