So what now, post Supreme Court decisions?

[misty]

The McCanns were quite properly and legally made arguidos. The case was archived due to insufficient evidence. What you think is completely irrelevant.

They were also released from their arguido status so were as innocent as anyone else who had been investigated during the course of the investigation - something the SC had no right to pass judgement on yet chose to do so.

[Alice Purjorick]

They were also released from their arguido status so were as innocent as anyone else who had been investigated during the course of the investigation - something the SC had no right to pass judgement on yet chose to do so.

Did they pass judgement on it?
Surely they merely clarified a point of law. Let's call it German Civil Law fro that's what it is, to avoid bias; unless the Luftwaffe bombed you local chippy of course.

[Mr Gray]

The McCanns believed they had been found innocent because the archiving dispatch quoted article 277 number 1 of the Penal Process Code, which states that the archival is determined when it is concluded that the defendants did not commit the crimes.

Article 277 number 1 can only be used, however, when it is concluded that there is no crime or when it is concluded that the crime was not practised by the arguido, but by another person.

These conditions were not fulfilled. In addition, the reasoning of the archive dispatch didn't support the use of this article. The Supreme Court agreed with the Appeal Court that the archival was actually due to 'insufficiency of evidence' and the Prosecutors should have quoted Article 277 number 2.

https://joana-morais.blogspot.co.uk/2017/03/on-mccanns-request-for-annulment-of.html

As the article is wrong in as much that the McCanns have not claimed they have been found innocent then the rest of this is highly questionable

[G-Unit]

They were also released from their arguido status so were as innocent as anyone else who had been investigated during the course of the investigation - something the SC had no right to pass judgement on yet chose to do so.

They claimed in their appeal to the SC that the archiving dispatch cleared them. Did you expect the SC to ignore what they said? They had no option but to answer.

[misty]

Did they pass judgement on it?
Surely they merely clarified a point of law. Let's call it German Civil Law fro that's what it is, to avoid bias; unless the Luftwaffe bombed you local chippy of course.

Please explain exactly what point of law the SC clarified and why they chose to decide what was meant in the archiving report rather than what the AG had actually written.

[misty]

They claimed in their appeal to the SC that the archiving dispatch cleared them. Did you expect the SC to ignore what they said? They had no option but to answer.

So although the Appeal Court said that the presumption of innocence was not relevant in a civil court, the McCanns status was not equal to Amaral's because they had not been proven to be innocent in a criminal case which had never been tested? Where is the issue of Civil Law addressed?

[Alice Purjorick]

Please explain exactly what point of law the SC clarified and why they chose to decide what was meant in the archiving report rather than what the AG had actually written.

1 I am not clever enough to be able to answer that. My expertise lies in a different branch of law.
I am however clever enough to know that courts at that level mostly deal in points of law not fact. The assertions of many on here notwithstanding.
2 Because it is within their remit and they can ?

You have three options:
a. The case of the plaintiffs was weak and was therefore kicked out.
b. The Germanic system of law is crap.
c. The Portuguese administration the Germanic system is incompetent/corrupt => the SC were wrong and the punters on here were right.

Whatever the highest court in Portugal has ruled: end of the line.

[misty]

1 I am not clever enough to be able to answer that. My expertise lies in a different branch of law.
I am however clever enough to know that courts at that level mostly deal in points of law not fact. The assertions of many on here notwithstanding.
2 Because it is within their remit and they can ?

You have three options:
a. The case of the plaintiffs was weak and was therefore kicked out.
b. The Germanic system of law is crap.
c. The Portuguese administration the Germanic system is incompetent/corrupt => the SC were wrong and the punters on here were right.

Whatever the highest court in Portugal has ruled: end of the line.

Yes, I know that. Big raspberries to anyone who dares to sue one of the judiciary's own.

[Alfie]

Yes, I know that. Big raspberries to anyone who dares to sue one of the judiciary's own.

Funnily enough I was just reading an interview with Amaral from 2008 in which he is asked if he wants the McCanns to sue him and he answers most bullishly "yes!" so he must have had a shrewd hunch that the law would be on his side even back then.

[misty]

Funnily enough I was just reading an interview with Amaral from 2008 in which he is asked if he wants the McCanns to sue him and he answers most bullishly "yes!" so he must have had a shrewd hunch that the law would be on his side even back then.

He'd already been on the losing end of 2 claims for defamation he'd made so he knew full well how the law worked. It's the part about breaching his reserve duty about which I find the SC's ruling so difficult to understand.

[Robittybob1]

The duty of reserve was clearly breached.

[barrier]

The duty of reserve was clearly breached.

Where is that in the judgment?

[Robittybob1]

Where is that in the judgment?

It is not in the judgement that is our complaint.

[G-Unit]

It is not in the judgement that is our complaint.

For the duty of reserve to be discussed by the SC judges the McCann's had to include it in their appeal; they didn't.

[G-Unit]

So although the Appeal Court said that the presumption of innocence was not relevant in a civil court, the McCanns status was not equal to Amaral's because they had not been proven to be innocent in a criminal case which had never been tested? Where is the issue of Civil Law addressed?

Did they say 'the McCanns status was not equal to Amaral's because they had not been proven to be innocent in a criminal case'?

What issue of Civil Law?