McCanns seek to have Supreme Court judgement annulled in libel damages case.

[barrier]

Misty were the McCanns still arguidos when the book came out?  I thought the archiving report was what took away their arguido status.  I must admit I am confused as to this timeline and whether it is that important.
It reads like a pretty substantial argument formulated with help no doubt. (I was thinking of Carter Ruck but have no proof.)

The way I read it and I of course could be mistaken after bringing the the claim of being exonerated into the argument the SC judges then dismissed this saying no such thing had happened the McCann lawyers are now saying you shouldn't have said that.

[Montclair]

So in affect the McCann lawyer is now arguing against their own argument.

The McCanns lawyer is not arguing against their argument, she is just repeating it again, stating that the SC was wrong in saying that the archiving report did not exonerate the couple. Furthermore, she states that the SC were frivolous in making their decision.

[G-Unit]

If the trial was only about freedom of expression, why was so much emphasis placed by the SC on the contents of the archiving report, which had not even been written at the time Amaral's book was published? The SC decision used the report as a tool against presumption of innocence but failed to consider the facts which were clearly at odds with certain allegations made in Amaral's book. They also referred to his lack of intent to defame yet the book is all about the case against the McCanns, with insinuations & false allegations in virtually every chapter.

The SC judges paid attention to the archiving dispatch because Duarte's arguments relied on it. I think arguments about the contents of the book are immaterial now.

The only thing left is the complaint and the remaining question is whether the archiving dispatch said the McCanns had been 'proved innocent' or not.

[Robittybob1]

The way I read it and I of course could be mistaken after bringing the the claim of being exonerated into the argument the SC judges then dismissed this saying no such thing had happened the McCann lawyers are now saying you shouldn't have said that.

The book came out before the archiving report but did the McCanns still have their arguido status then too?  If that was the case and they were still arguidos then the McCanns could not have thought themselves cleared, but if the arguido status had been removed before the book came out, I can't see how they thought they were cleared.

Could the date on the archiving report be a typographical error?

The McCanns lawyer is not arguing against their argument, she is just repeating it again, stating that the SC was wrong in saying that the archiving report did not exonerate the couple. Furthermore, she states that the SC were frivolous in making their decision.

Did that "frivolous" word reappear?

The SC judges paid attention to the archiving dispatch because Duarte's arguments relied on it. I think arguments about the contents of the book are immaterial now.

The only thing left is the complaint and the remaining question is whether the archiving dispatch said the McCanns had been 'proved innocent' or not.

Do you think the timing of the events are unimportant?

[G-Unit]

The argument appears to be in summary...

"But we thought we were cleared?"

They go further in their complaint and say 'proved innocent'.

[Robittybob1]

They go further in their complaint and say 'proved innocent'.

as above "Do you think the timing of the events are unimportant?"

[John]

Please be aware that in the OP, Note 7 has been amended and Note 9 added.

[Robittybob1]

Please be aware that in the OP, Note 7 has been amended and Note 9 added.

Note 7  I don't recall what it said previously but the new one states

"Note 7 : The complexity of the filing order, erroneously known as the “AG Report”, is likely related to the difficult task the Public Ministry was facing. And one has to admit that the dispatch is not written as the judges of the STJ remarkably write their rulings. Mr Murat’s arguido status, twice extended, required to put an end to the criminal investigation (the status of arguidos can’t be removed before the end of that investigation phase). Furthermore the acquaintances of the MCs rejected the request of the Prosecutor to go back to PDL in order to be part in a reconstitution of the 3rd of May events, though the Prosecutor clearly warned that it was the last chance for boosting the rather stagnant criminal investigation. These are the significant circumstances involving the writing of the filing order. One has to acknowledge an important point however : the Prosecutors foresaw that their constrained decision, as it couldn’t exonerate the MCs, the crime being undetermined, would reflect the “major damage done to the MCs” by the refusal of the group to collaborate with the PJ."

I still struggle to accept why the McCanns should pay for the non cooperation of the Tapas 7 and Jez Wilkins.

[Lace]

At the time of the archiving they didn't have enough evidence to decide what the crime was. let alone to charge anyone. Unless the crime is known it seems ridiculous to suggest that someone has been 'proved innocent'. Innocent of what?

Exactly,  'innocent of what?'   the McCann's don't have to prove they are innocent as they have never been charged with being guilty in the first place.

[Robittybob1]

Exactly,  'innocent of what?'   the McCann's don't have to prove they are innocent as they have been charged with being guilty in the first place.

Innocent of the accusations made against them to become an arguido in the first place.

[Lace]

Innocent of the accusations made against them to become an arguido in the first place.

Sorry Rob,  my post should have read 'have never been charged'.

[Robittybob1]

Sorry Rob,  my post should have read 'have never been charged'.

OK but what I said is still alright.  The McCanns are "Innocent of the accusations [that were] made against them to become an arguido in the first place".

[G-Unit]

Exactly,  'innocent of what?'   the McCann's don't have to prove they are innocent as they have never been charged with being guilty in the first place.

Why claim that the archiving dispatch referred to evidence 'proving' their innocence then?

[Robittybob1]

Why claim that the archiving dispatch referred to evidence 'proving' their innocence then?

The archiving report shows they are "Innocent of the accusations [that were] made against them to become an arguido in the first place".

[Lace]

Why claim that the archiving dispatch referred to evidence 'proving' their innocence then?

Or 'confirming' their innocence?