Author Topic: So what now, post Supreme Court decisions?  (Read 98795 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline slartibartfast

Re: So what now, post Supreme Court decisions?
« Reply #180 on: March 31, 2017, 04:12:28 PM »
they overturned the judgement

No.
“Reasoning will never make a Man correct an ill Opinion, which by Reasoning he never acquired”.

Offline Mr Gray


Offline slartibartfast

Re: So what now, post Supreme Court decisions?
« Reply #182 on: March 31, 2017, 04:51:15 PM »
yes

You will be able to provide a cite?
“Reasoning will never make a Man correct an ill Opinion, which by Reasoning he never acquired”.

Offline Alice Purjorick

Re: So what now, post Supreme Court decisions?
« Reply #183 on: March 31, 2017, 05:28:35 PM »
they overturned the judgement and ordered the portuguese govt to pay compensation
Give the name of the plaintiff and the case number if you can't give a cite.
"Navigating the difference between weird but normal grief and truly suspicious behaviour is the key for any detective worth his salt.". ….Sarah Bailey

Offline Mr Gray

Re: So what now, post Supreme Court decisions?
« Reply #184 on: March 31, 2017, 05:37:16 PM »
Give the name of the plaintiff and the case number if you can't give a cite.
I will look
The case is mentioned in the SC ruling ang gunit quoted it last week

Alfie

  • Guest
Re: So what now, post Supreme Court decisions?
« Reply #185 on: March 31, 2017, 05:41:48 PM »

Offline Mr Gray

Re: So what now, post Supreme Court decisions?
« Reply #186 on: March 31, 2017, 05:47:29 PM »
Give the name of the plaintiff and the case number if you can't give a cite.
Fernandez & Fernandes vs Portugal

Offline Alice Purjorick

Re: So what now, post Supreme Court decisions?
« Reply #187 on: March 31, 2017, 05:51:16 PM »
I will look
The case is mentioned in the SC ruling ang gunit quoted it last week

Jolly good.
Meantime I suppose the ECHR do not know what they are on about or what their powers are

http://www.echr.coe.int/Documents/Questions_Answers_ENG.pdf

page 9

Please note:
"The Court is not empowered to overrule national decisions
or annul national laws."
"Navigating the difference between weird but normal grief and truly suspicious behaviour is the key for any detective worth his salt.". ….Sarah Bailey

Offline Angelo222

Re: So what now, post Supreme Court decisions?
« Reply #188 on: March 31, 2017, 07:55:27 PM »
In my view the SC has sent out a very clear message to both the PJ and SY that nobody is beyond suspicion in this case.    Will they take the hint though??
De troothe has the annoying habit of coming to the surface just when you least expect it!!

Je ne regrette rien!!

Offline Mr Gray

Re: So what now, post Supreme Court decisions?
« Reply #189 on: March 31, 2017, 08:13:40 PM »
In my view the SC has sent out a very clear message to both the PJ and SY that nobody is beyond suspicion in this case.    Will they take the hint though??

read the judgement...the SC say they have not ruled on guilt.......the mccanns are not under suspicion and the SC  have no kowledge of the present investigation

Offline Robittybob1

Re: So what now, post Supreme Court decisions?
« Reply #190 on: March 31, 2017, 08:30:15 PM »
read the judgement...the SC say they have not ruled on guilt.......the mccanns are not under suspicion and the SC  have no kowledge of the present investigation
True on the surface, but hidden underneath, is the veil of suspicion, and the McCanns were not found to be innocent but just that there was insufficient evidence to prosecute them (in fact there was no evidence at all, but it sounds so much more sinister if that is described as "insufficient").
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.

ferryman

  • Guest
Re: So what now, post Supreme Court decisions?
« Reply #191 on: April 02, 2017, 10:07:28 AM »
True on the surface, but hidden underneath, is the veil of suspicion, and the McCanns were not found to be innocent but just that there was insufficient evidence to prosecute them (in fact there was no evidence at all, but it sounds so much more sinister if that is described as "insufficient").

Especially in the light of all this:

Quote
It seems evident to us and because the files contain enough elements for such, that the crime of exposure or abandonment according to article 138 of the Penal Code can be eliminated from that range:

"1 - Whoever places another person's life in danger,
a) By exposing her in a location where she is subject to a situation from which she, on her own, cannot defend herself against; or
b) Abandoning her without defence, whenever the agent had the duty to guard her, to watch over her or to assist her;"

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.

Reinforcing what was said is also the fact that despite leaving their daughter alone with her siblings in the apartment during more or less dilated moments, it is certain that in any case they checked on them. Without any pretension or compensatory effect, we must also recognise that the parents already expiate a heavy penalty - the disappearance of Madeleine - due to their lack of caution in the surveillance and protection of their children.

Concerning the other indicated crimes, they are no more than that and despite our perception that, due to its high degree of probability, the occurrence of a homicide cannot be discarded, such cannot be more than a mere supposition, due to the lack of sustaining elements in the files.

The non involvement of the arguidos parents of Madeleine in any penally relevant action seems to result from the objective circumstances of them not being inside the apartment when she disappeared, from the normal behaviour that they adopted until said disappearance and afterwards, as can be amply concluded from the witness statements, from the telephone communications analysis and also from the forensics' conclusions, namely the Reports from the FSS and from the National Institute for Legal Medicine.

How much clearer could, or should, the prosecutors have had to make it that they consider, not so much that the McCanns were 'cleared'; more that they had/have no case to answer, in terms of anything concerning Madeleine's disappearance.

That the appeal court judges should have interpreted the archiving dispatch through the prism of the report of convicted torturer (from another case) Tavares Almeidas raises an eye brow.

The much more relevant PJ report was the one written by Joao Carlos.

stephen25000

  • Guest
Re: So what now, post Supreme Court decisions?
« Reply #192 on: April 02, 2017, 01:44:23 PM »
Especially in the light of all this:

How much clearer could, or should, the prosecutors have had to make it that they consider, not so much that the McCanns were 'cleared'; more that they had/have no case to answer, in terms of anything concerning Madeleine's disappearance.

That the appeal court judges should have interpreted the archiving dispatch through the prism of the report of convicted torturer (from another case) Tavares Almeidas raises an eye brow.

The much more relevant PJ report was the one written by Joao Carlos.

Case over ferryman.

« Last Edit: April 02, 2017, 02:08:57 PM by Eleanor »

Offline Robittybob1

Re: So what now, post Supreme Court decisions?
« Reply #193 on: April 02, 2017, 08:47:35 PM »
Case over ferryman.
Dubious result though.
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 jassi

Re: So what now, post Supreme Court decisions?
« Reply #194 on: April 02, 2017, 08:49:15 PM »
Dubious result though.

Only to those who want it to be. The rest of the world is quite content with it.
I believe everything. And l believe nothing.
I suspect everyone. And l suspect no one.
I gather the facts, examine the clues... and before   you know it, the case is solved!"

Or maybe not -

OG have been pushed out by the Germans who have reserved all the deck chairs for the foreseeable future