UK Justice Forum 🇬🇧
Disappeared and Abducted Children and Young Adults => Madeleine McCann (3) disappeared from her parent's holiday apartment at Ocean Club, Praia da Luz, Portugal on 3 May 2007. No trace of her has ever been found. => Topic started by: Mr Gray on February 23, 2020, 06:42:50 PM
-
The mccanns have never claimed to have been declared innocent
-
The mccanns have never claimed to have been declared innocent
IMO I think Goncalo Amaral came to a sensible conclusion at that time in the investigation.
As he has said numerous times, the investigation was not allowed to run it's course and test certain theories to the end. His hypothesis may have changed had other information come to light.
How is that so hard to understand? I think he was close with his theory and allowed to carry on his investigation unhindered, would have uncovered more detail of what happened.
-
The mccanns have never claimed to have been declared innocent
Their lawyer claimed it on their behalf.
-
Their lawyer claimed it on their behalf.
Cite..I don't think you've ever given one
-
Their lawyer claimed it on their behalf.
No she did not... Try sticking to the truth... The lawyer never claimed the mccanns had been declared innocent
-
No she did not... Try sticking to the truth... The lawyer never claimed the mccanns had been declared innocent
I have been over this with you before and provided the evidence of what was claimed. It wasn't accepted by you then, so why would I bother repeating myself? If you wish to re-read it it's all on this thread;
http://miscarriageofjustice.co/index.php?topic=8465.0
-
I have been over this with you before and provided the evidence of what was claimed. It wasn't accepted by you then, so why would I bother repeating myself? If you wish to re-read it it's all on this thread;
http://miscarriageofjustice.co/index.php?topic=8465.0
You were not able to provide, a quote then.. And you can't now... The lawyer never claimed the mccanns had been declared innocent... What you are claiming isn't true
-
I have been over this with you before and provided the evidence of what was claimed. It wasn't accepted by you then, so why would I bother repeating myself? If you wish to re-read it it's all on this thread;
http://miscarriageofjustice.co/index.php?topic=8465.0
That is just a wee bit unrealistic to ask anyone to search through a thread consisting of 239 pages to back up your allegation for you.
You made the allegation; you have been asked for a cite; please supply one. Thank you.
-
You were not able to provide, a quote then.. And you can't now... The lawyer never claimed the mccanns had been declared innocent... What you are claiming isn't true
The lawyer did - it was in the appeal process.
Snipped from the SC judgement 2017:-
[attachment deleted by admin]
-
The lawyer did - it was in the appeal process.
Snipped from the SC judgement 2017:-
No, that is their lawyer claiming they are innocent (as you would expect any lawyer on your side to do in such circs), not that they have been declared innocent by any court.
-
The lawyer did - it was in the appeal process.
Snipped from the SC judgement 2017:-
Thanks.....as VS pointed out this is their lawyer claiming they re innocent...which is quite normal...not that they were declared innocent...gunit has failed to provide a cite and has been shown to be wrong.
What gunit may be referring to is the claim that the archiving despatch was evidence of innocence...which of course it is...evidence but not proof
-
Thanks.....as VS pointed out this is their lawyer claiming they re innocent...which is quite normal...not that they were declared innocent...gunit has failed to provide a cite and has been shown to be wrong.
What gunit may be referring to is the claim that the archiving despatch was evidence of innocence...which of course it is...evidence but not proof
The McCann's lawyer argued that the archiving was a legal decision comparable to an acquittal as in the case of Allen v United Kingdom. They said;
As far as the appellants are aware of, the archiving at stake was carried out, in the course of the investigation, because sufficient proof had been gathered that the then arguidos did not commit any facts of a criminal relevance...the filing order uttered according to article 277-1 of the CPP, after the deadline of article 278 (10) of the same legal compendium, is res judicata
http://www.gerrymccannsblogs.co.uk/Annulment_request.htm
No proof of the McCanns innocence was gathered, and an archiving dispatch is not a decision equal to an acquittal. An archiving isn't a trial, so it isn't res judicata, which means 'a matter already judged'.
-
The McCann's lawyer argued that the archiving was a legal decision comparable to an acquittal as in the case of Allen v United Kingdom. They said;
As far as the appellants are aware of, the archiving at stake was carried out, in the course of the investigation, because sufficient proof had been gathered that the then arguidos did not commit any facts of a criminal relevance...the filing order uttered according to article 277-1 of the CPP, after the deadline of article 278 (10) of the same legal compendium, is res judicata
http://www.gerrymccannsblogs.co.uk/Annulment_request.htm
No proof of the McCanns innocence was gathered, and an archiving dispatch is not a decision equal to an acquittal. An archiving isn't a trial, so it isn't res judicata, which means 'a matter already judged'.
You claimed the McCann's lawyer claimed they had been declared innocent...that is not true ..even an acquittal is not a declaration of innocence.
There is no claim to a declaration of innocence..have the decency to admit you are wrong and stop twisting the facts
-
That is just a wee bit unrealistic to ask anyone to search through a thread consisting of 239 pages to back up your allegation for you.
You made the allegation; you have been asked for a cite; please supply one. Thank you.
Thank you for reminding me of the rules. Perhaps you would like to enforce them in every case, not just in mine?
snip/
Please provide a link to the actual report so I can read it and see if I can come round to your beliefs about dog alert evidence...
That report, any luck?
Er, the report?
THE REPLY;
What's the point... I could make a FOi request.... I could email Cassella... Why should I bother... I know the truth.. You and your views, are just not important
http://miscarriageofjustice.co/index.php?topic=11244.75
-
You claimed the McCann's lawyer claimed they had been declared innocent...that is not true ..even an acquittal is not a declaration of innocence.
There is no claim to a declaration of innocence..have the decency to admit you are wrong and stop twisting the facts
Read it again;
"because sufficient proof had been gathered that the then arguidos did not commit any facts of a criminal relevance"
That's a posh way of saying that the investigation had PROOF that the arguidos committed no crime. If it's proved someone didn't commit a crime they are clearly innocent.
-
Read it again;
"because sufficient proof had been gathered that the then arguidos did not commit any facts of a criminal relevance"
That's a posh way of saying that the investigation had PROOF that the arguidos committed no crime. If it's proved someone didn't commit a crime they are clearly innocent.
That's your interpretation...there is no claim to a declaration of innocence...
-
That's your interpretation...there is no claim to a declaration of innocence...
My interpretaion agrees with that of the Supreme Court judges who's reply was;
Thus, it does not appear acceptable to consider that the alluded dispatch, based on the insufficiency of evidence, should be treated as evidence of innocence.
http://www.gerrymccannsblogs.co.uk/STJ_21_03_2017_Rejected.htm
-
My interpretaion agrees with that of the Supreme Court judges who's reply was;
Thus, it does not appear acceptable to consider that the alluded dispatch, based on the insufficiency of evidence, should be treated as evidence of innocence.
http://www.gerrymccannsblogs.co.uk/STJ_21_03_2017_Rejected.htm
so where does it say the lawyer claims that the McCanns were declared innocent...it doesnt does it. You dont have a cite ...best just admit it.
Insufficiency of evidence id evidence of innocence...but not proof...so the SC are wrong.
people are found not guilty due to insufficiency of evidence
-
so where does it say the lawyer claims that the McCanns were declared innocent...it doesnt does it. You dont have a cite ...best just admit it.
Insufficiency of evidence id evidence of innocence...but not proof...so the SC are wrong.
people are found not guilty due to insufficiency of evidence
You obviously don't understand what their legal arguments meant. I do.
-
You obviously don't understand what their legal arguments meant. I do.
Its you who doesnt understand..
You have failed to show a cite for "declared innocent".
You have provided a cite that when challenged at the ECHR the SC has found to be wrong on numerous occasions..
You fail to understand absence of evidence is evidence of innocence....another point the SC got wrong..
-
so where does it say the lawyer claims that the McCanns were declared innocent...it doesnt does it. You dont have a cite ...best just admit it.
Insufficiency of evidence id evidence of innocence...but not proof...so the SC are wrong.
people are found not guilty due to insufficiency of evidence
insufficient evidence is not evidence of innocence because the case is still on-going.
-
so where does it say the lawyer claims that the McCanns were declared innocent...it doesnt does it. You dont have a cite ...best just admit it.
Insufficiency of evidence id evidence of innocence...but not proof...so the SC are wrong.
people are found not guilty due to insufficiency of evidence
The lawyers said the archiving occurred because the investigators gathered proof that the arguidos committed no crime. They got it wrong, as the SC pointed out. The archiving took place because the investigators hadn't got enough evidence to charge the arguidos.
-
The lawyers said the archiving occurred because the investigators gathered proof that the arguidos committed no crime. They got it wrong, as the SC pointed out. The archiving took place because the investigators hadn't got enough evidence to charge the arguidos.
Semantics...there was insufficient evidence to show the McCann's had committed any crime...so how much evidence was there...we know there was no real evidence...what evidence do you think there was.
The archiving despatch said none of the evidence used to make the McCann's arguido was confirmed...that's none..
Did the SC have evidence the investigation didn't ..laughable
-
insufficient evidence is not evidence of innocence because the case is still on-going.
It is evidence but not proof
-
The lawyers said the archiving occurred because the investigators gathered proof that the arguidos committed no crime. They got it wrong, as the SC pointed out. The archiving took place because the investigators hadn't got enough evidence to charge the arguidos.
I think we need to say this slower.
The lawyers (McCanns) said the archiving occurred because the investigators gathered proof that the arguidos (McCanns) committed no crime.
making a claim they are innocent.
SC pointed out. The archiving took place because the investigators hadn't got enough evidence to charge the arguidos.(McCanns)
archived until new evidence either way would enable the arguidos to be charged or off the hook so to speak.
-
I think we need to say this slower.
The lawyers (McCanns) said the archiving occurred because the investigators gathered proof that the arguidos (McCanns) committed no crime.
making a claim they are innocent.
SC pointed out. The archiving took place because the investigators hadn't got enough evidence to charge the arguidos.(McCanns)
archived until new evidence either way would enable the arguidos to be charged or off the hook so to speak.
The McCanns have every right to claim they are innocent...that's not the title of the thread...they have never claimed to have been declared innocent...that's quite different
-
The McCanns have every right to claim they are innocent...that's not the title of the thread...they have never claimed to have been declared innocent...that's quite different
This is what they're relying on;
Article 277 - Archiving of the investigation
1 - The Public Ministry shall, by dispatch, close the investigation, as soon as it has gathered sufficient evidence that the crime was not confirmed, that the arguido did not practice it in any way or that the procedure is legally inadmissible
http://www.gerrymccannsblogs.co.uk/Annulment_request.htm
Anyone reading the archiving dispatch can see that no such evidence was quoted. In fact it said at one point;
We believe that the main damage was caused to the McCann arguidos, who lost the possibility to prove what they have protested since they were constituted arguidos: their innocence towards the fateful event;
https://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/PJ/LEGAL_SUMMARY.htm
That clearly contradicts the claim in the annulment request.
-
This is what they're relying on;
Article 277 - Archiving of the investigation
1 - The Public Ministry shall, by dispatch, close the investigation, as soon as it has gathered sufficient evidence that the crime was not confirmed, that the arguido did not practice it in any way or that the procedure is legally inadmissible
http://www.gerrymccannsblogs.co.uk/Annulment_request.htm
Anyone reading the archiving dispatch can see that no such evidence was quoted. In fact it said at one point;
We believe that the main damage was caused to the McCann arguidos, who lost the possibility to prove what they have protested since they were constituted arguidos: their innocence towards the fateful event;
https://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/PJ/LEGAL_SUMMARY.htm
That clearly contradicts the claim in the annulment request.
no it doesnt...and thats why you havent quoted the annulment request...so cite for the claim in the annulment request.
where have the mccanns claimed they have been declared innocent....they havent....your claim is absolute rubbish.
the mcCanns have claimed innocence...as they are entitled to do...but they have not claimed to have been declared innocent...stop promoting lies/untruths
-
no it doesnt...and thats why you havent quoted the annulment request...so cite for the claim in the annulment request.
where have the mccanns claimed they have been declared innocent....they havent....your claim is absolute rubbish.
the mcCanns have claimed innocence...as they are entitled to do...but they have not claimed to have been declared innocent...stop promoting lies/untruths
In your opinion you are always right, so I see no point in continuing the discussion.
-
In your opinion you are always right, so I see no point in continuing the discussion.
You can't continue you it because I am right...I've asked many times for a cite and you've always failed....the McCann's have never claimed to have been declared innocent as you have claimed...you are promoting lies/untruths.
-
In your opinion you are always right, so I see no point in continuing the discussion.
There was no evidence against any of the arguidos ~ McCann, McCann and Murat which is why none of them were charged with any offence and none of them were brought to trial for the simple reason there was no evidence to do so.
Madeleine's case was archived. In the event of fresh evidence being found her case would be reopened and that is what happened in 2013 according to Portuguese law.
It is obvious to anyone who has followed Madeleine's case that the Judicial Police have been investigating abduction by a stranger.
The Judicial Police having said forcefully that Madeleine's parents are not suspects.
Therefore the Mcanns have never had the need to claim they have been declared innocent ... the situation has never arisen where anyone had the legal authority to arrive at any conclusion. Which makes it rather extraordinary that there are those who have taken it upon themselves to be judge and jury when the current investigators quite obviously have their sights firmly set elsewhere.
-
Snip/
It is obvious to anyone who has followed Madeleine's case that the Judicial Police have been investigating abduction by a stranger.
Really?
-
Really?
What do you think they are doing?
-
What do you think they are doing?
I don't know because they've never said. How do you know what they're doing?
-
There was no evidence against any of the arguidos ~ McCann, McCann and Murat which is why none of them were charged with any offence and none of them were brought to trial for the simple reason there was no evidence to do so.
I'm pleased to see that you agree with the Supreme Court that the investigators didn't gather sufficient proof that the then arguidos did not commit any facts of a criminal relevance.
-
I don't know because they've never said. How do you know what they're doing?
Do Carmo said in 2017 we have to prepared for different scenario's.
-
The mccanns have never claimed to have been declared innocent
The papers were quick to run with "they have not been declared innocent" though.
-
Do Carmo said in 2017 we have to prepared for different scenario's.
but a caveat.....parents not suspects and no evidence....so it could be argued he ruled out the parents
-
The papers were quick to run with "they have not been declared innocent" though.
Because they haven't been to court to have that bestowed on them. For all we know the PJ may still suspect them.
-
Because they haven't been to court to have that bestowed on them. For all we know the PJ may still suspect them.
For all we know the moon may be made out of cheese, and NASA have been lying to us all these years.
-
For all we know the moon may be made out of cheese, and NASA have been lying to us all these years.
Some would say NASA has lied all these years. ^*&&
-
Some would say NASA has lied all these years. ^*&&
Yes, the same some who believe all sorts of nonsense.
-
I don't know because they've never said. How do you know what they're doing?
I know they had to be following fresh evidence ... the law would not have allowed Madeleine's case to be reopened if there had been none in justification.
I know they investigated a former employee of the Ocean Club.
I know they have no interest in Kate ... I know they have no interest in Gerry ... I know they have no interest in their friends. I know this because they have said so. I believe they have no interest in Robert Murat either.
According to Amaral they recently had a German in their sights ... that one I can take or leave as I believe the man to be a liar as did the Portuguese courts; I would have expected you to at least give a nod in his direction, but it seems you have missed that too.
-
I'm pleased to see that you agree with the Supreme Court that the investigators didn't gather sufficient proof that the then arguidos did not commit any facts of a criminal relevance.
What I actually said was ...
"There was no evidence against any of the arguidos ~ McCann, McCann and Murat which is why none of them were charged with any offence and none of them were brought to trial for the simple reason there was no evidence to do so.
Madeleine's case was archived. In the event of fresh evidence being found her case would be reopened and that is what happened in 2013 according to Portuguese law.
It is obvious to anyone who has followed Madeleine's case that the Judicial Police have been investigating abduction by a stranger.
The Judicial Police having said forcefully that Madeleine's parents are not suspects.
Therefore the Mcanns have never had the need to claim they have been declared innocent ... the situation has never arisen where anyone had the legal authority to arrive at any conclusion. Which makes it rather extraordinary that there are those who have taken it upon themselves to be judge and jury when the current investigators quite obviously have their sights firmly set elsewhere."
http://miscarriageofjustice.co/index.php?topic=11266.msg577287#msg577287
Please desist from this recently readopted habit you have of truncating my posts when you are replying to them (I have complained to you of such interference on a previous occasion) ; in that way you will get the meaning of them as is and not your interpretation of whatyou think it should be.
-
I know they had to be following fresh evidence ... the law would not have allowed Madeleine's case to be reopened if there had been none in justification.
I know they investigated a former employee of the Ocean Club.
I know they have no interest in Kate ... I know they have no interest in Gerry ... I know they have no interest in their friends. I know this because they have said so. I believe they have no interest in Robert Murat either.
According to Amaral they recently had a German in their sights ... that one I can take or leave as I believe the man to be a liar as did the Portuguese courts; I would have expected you to at least give a nod in his direction, but it seems you have missed that too.
It is a fact that the investigation was reopened, but the reasons weren't made public.
According to the media the Portuguese police spoke to the widow of a former employee of the Ocean Club, but whether that was due to a request from Op Grange or whether it was something the Portuguese police instigated isn't known.
Pedro do Carmo said the McCanns weren't suspects in 2017, which means that they weren't suspects. Whether he meant they weren't suspected or that they weren't formal suspects isn't known.
I thought Amaral told Mark Saunokonoko that Op Grange were interested in a German?
-
It is a fact that the investigation was reopened, but the reasons weren't made public.
According to the media the Portuguese police spoke to the widow of a former employee of the Ocean Club, but whether that was due to a request from Op Grange or whether it was something the Portuguese police instigated isn't known.
Pedro do Carmo said the McCanns weren't suspects in 2017, which means that they weren't suspects. Whether he meant they weren't suspected or that they weren't formal suspects isn't known.
I thought Amaral told Mark Saunokonoko that Op Grange were interested in a German?
British barmaid was interviewed about her ex,he's German apparently.
-
IMO anyone seriously entertaining the idea that the McCanns are being investigated as suspects into their daughter's disappearance is sadly deluding themselves. I know it's hard to come to terms with, but IMO you need to let it go and face reality.
-
IMO anyone seriously entertaining the idea that the McCanns are being investigated as suspects into their daughter's disappearance is sadly deluding themselves. I know it's hard to come to terms with, but IMO you need to let it go and face reality.
Well yes of course, because the reality is there's a multitude of evidence against other possible suspects, such as.....
Eucilides Montiero, because he's a black guy who once worked at the OC.
Robert Murat, because he used a mobile phone & lived near 5a.
Sergey Malinka, because he owned a lap top, phone & dumped an old sofa.
Some bogus charity collectors, because petty theives often steal kids.
A creepy looking man, because he was creepy looking.
Spotty man, because he was spotty & seen close to 5a.
Some barmaids ex boyfriend, because he's a hippy & hippies are renown for abducting kids.
The list is endless, you might even be a suspect yourself.
-
Besides,
How could SY & the PJ go about investigating the McCanns exactly, other than by questioning them?
I can already predict what their answers would be.
Seriously, I'd love to know.
-
Well yes of course, because the reality is there's a multitude of evidence against other possible suspects, such as.....
Eucilides Montiero, because he's a black guy who once worked at the OC.
Robert Murat, because he used a mobile phone & lived near 5a.
Sergey Malinka, because he owned a lap top, phone & dumped an old sofa.
Some bogus charity collectors, because petty theives often steal kids.
A creepy looking man, because he was creepy looking.
Spotty man, because he was spotty & seen close to 5a.
Some barmaids ex boyfriend, because he's a hippy & hippies are renown for abducting kids.
The list is endless, you might even be a suspect yourself.
your stupid sarcasm is very tiresome and incredibly childish, IMO.
-
your stupid sarcasm is very tiresome and incredibly childish, IMO.
Personal attacks eh?
-
Besides,
How could SY & the PJ go about investigating the McCanns exactly, other than by questioning them?
I can already predict what their answers would be.
Seriously, I'd love to know.
So then you’ve just made the point - the McCanns are not being investigated, unless you seriously think £12m has been spent on tea and biscuits for a roomful of police detectives to sit on their arses watching daytime tv for the last 6 years, waiting for their chief suspects to call with a confession?
-
So then you’ve just made the point - the McCanns are not being investigated, unless you seriously think £12m has been spent on tea and biscuits for a roomful of police detectives to sit on their arses watching daytime tv for the last 6 years, waiting for their chief suspects to call with a confession?
No, it's been spent on investigating ridiculous & far fetched dead ends if the press reports are anything to go by.
Which is hardly justifiable during the age of austerity imo.
-
Personal attacks eh?
Your argument is thus - the McCanns must be suspects because you’ve deemed that everyone else ever mentioned as possible suspects can’t really be suspects because in your opinion the McCanns dunnit. That is not a very clear and logical argument, is it?
-
No, it's been spent on investigating ridiculous & far fetched dead ends if the press reports are anything to go by.
Which is hardly justifiable during the age of austerity imo.
Then you must agree with what I wrote, so why challenge it with your sarky list of suspects?
-
Then you must agree with what I wrote, so why challenge it with your sarky list of suspects?
Because the abduction of MM is a joke in itself.
-
Because the abduction of MM is a joke in itself.
no it isnt
-
no it isnt
Yes it is.
-
Because the abduction of MM is a joke in itself.
It really doesn’t matter what your opinion is, in my opinion however, the McCanns are not suspects, which was my original point which you raged against impotently and illogically.
-
Yes it is.
as its just the 5 min argument we'll have to agree to disagree
-
It really doesn’t matter what your opinion is, the fact is the McCanns are not suspects which was my original point which you raged against impotently and illogically.
But that doesn't mean they didn't do it.
-
It really doesn’t matter what your opinion is, in my opinion however, the McCanns are not suspects, which was my original point which you raged against impotently and illogically.
The fact is that only police officers directly involved in the investigation know who is now considered a suspect.
-
The fact is that only police officers directly involved in the investigation know who is now considered a suspect.
Straw clutching.
-
Straw clutching.
I have my own views on this which I don't normally share but on this occasion I will. In my view, Scotland Yard have drawn a total blank in this investigation and have no suspects at all.
-
I have my own views on this which I don't normally share but on this occasion I will. In my view, Scotland Yard have drawn a total blank in this investigation and have no suspects at all.
Upon what do you base this view?
-
The fact is that only police officers directly involved in the investigation know who is now considered a suspect.
it isnt just what SY and the PJ have clearly said. It seems clear the parents are not being investigated...it is highly , highly unlikely taht new evidence has come to light against them.....you can speculate but thats all it is. On the available evidence the parents are not suspects and are not being investigated
-
it isnt just what SY and the PJ have clearly said. It seems clear the parents are not being investigated...it is highly , highly unlikely taht new evidence has come to light against them.....you can speculate but thats all it is. On the available evidence the parents are not suspects and are not being investigated
I think you're right. I think there's currently nobody being investigated.
But SY will have to convince, or at least brief, a new Home Secretary, Priti Patel, who, in the current climate, does not appear to be long for her post. I doubt Tory leadership will let her make any decisions with the sword of Damocles hanging over her, including Coronavirus / COBRA issues - haven't seen much from her at this most pivotal time.
-
it isnt just what SY and the PJ have clearly said. It seems clear the parents are not being investigated...it is highly , highly unlikely taht new evidence has come to light against them.....you can speculate but thats all it is. On the available evidence the parents are not suspects and are not being investigated
Its just speculation from you - that they re not also
-
Its just speculation from you - that they re not also
Based on evidence as I've pointed out...note the title of the tread . You posted that the McCanns claim to have been declared innocent...they didn't..you're wrong
-
Perhaps people can understand this article about the request for annulment better than they can understand court documents;
The couple's fight-back was laid out in a nine-page complaint.
It was lodged with the Supreme Court in February in a bid to invalidate its ruling rejecting the McCanns' libel appeal against Amaral and the makers of a TV documentary based on his book.
The document, drafted by the McCanns' Portuguese lawyer Isabel Duarte and her colleague Ricardo Correia, says: 'The appellants understand the archiving of the case took place because during the inquiry, sufficient evidence had been collected to show the 'arguidos' had not committed any crime.'
They said the removal of the McCanns' 'arguido' status had legally binding connotations and claimed the Supreme Court judges' argument 'lacked foundation and could be easily altered'.
Accusing them of acting 'frivolously' and contradicting themselves with their statements about the reasons for the 2008 probe archive, they added: 'It cannot be stated that it is not acceptable that the archiving of the case is considered the equivalent to proof of innocence.'
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-4338616/McCanns-lose-final-court-case-silence-policeman.html
It's clear from the answers the Supreme Court gave that the McCann's lawyers had claimed that the archiving dispatch was a legally binding document and that the archiving was the quivalent to proof of innocence.
-
Perhaps people can understand this article about the request for annulment better than they can understand court documents;
The couple's fight-back was laid out in a nine-page complaint.
It was lodged with the Supreme Court in February in a bid to invalidate its ruling rejecting the McCanns' libel appeal against Amaral and the makers of a TV documentary based on his book.
The document, drafted by the McCanns' Portuguese lawyer Isabel Duarte and her colleague Ricardo Correia, says: 'The appellants understand the archiving of the case took place because during the inquiry, sufficient evidence had been collected to show the 'arguidos' had not committed any crime.'
They said the removal of the McCanns' 'arguido' status had legally binding connotations and claimed the Supreme Court judges' argument 'lacked foundation and could be easily altered'.
Accusing them of acting 'frivolously' and contradicting themselves with their statements about the reasons for the 2008 probe archive, they added: 'It cannot be stated that it is not acceptable that the archiving of the case is considered the equivalent to proof of innocence.'
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-4338616/McCanns-lose-final-court-case-silence-policeman.html
It's clear from the answers the Supreme Court gave that the McCann's lawyers had claimed that the archiving dispatch was a legally binding document and that the archiving was the equivalent to proof of innocence.
Any point of view can be argued, but is it accepted?
-
Perhaps people can understand this article about the request for annulment better than they can understand court documents;
The couple's fight-back was laid out in a nine-page complaint.
It was lodged with the Supreme Court in February in a bid to invalidate its ruling rejecting the McCanns' libel appeal against Amaral and the makers of a TV documentary based on his book.
The document, drafted by the McCanns' Portuguese lawyer Isabel Duarte and her colleague Ricardo Correia, says: 'The appellants understand the archiving of the case took place because during the inquiry, sufficient evidence had been collected to show the 'arguidos' had not committed any crime.'
They said the removal of the McCanns' 'arguido' status had legally binding connotations and claimed the Supreme Court judges' argument 'lacked foundation and could be easily altered'.
Accusing them of acting 'frivolously' and contradicting themselves with their statements about the reasons for the 2008 probe archive, they added: 'It cannot be stated that it is not acceptable that the archiving of the case is considered the equivalent to proof of innocence.'
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-4338616/McCanns-lose-final-court-case-silence-policeman.html
It's clear from the answers the Supreme Court gave that the McCann's lawyers had claimed that the archiving dispatch was a legally binding document and that the archiving was the quivalent to proof of innocence.
perhasp you can understand this......have the McCanns lawyers ever claimed the McCanns have been proved innocent...nothing you have posted supports the claim you have made.
a not guilty verdict in court is not proof of innocence....so why should the removal of the arguido status be.
as for the SC claim of proof of innocence...as i understand the translation is evidence of innocence...which it is.
you are once again giving your opinion as to what the court meant and are not stating facts
-
Perhaps people can understand this article about the request for annulment better than they can understand court documents;
The couple's fight-back was laid out in a nine-page complaint.
It was lodged with the Supreme Court in February in a bid to invalidate its ruling rejecting the McCanns' libel appeal against Amaral and the makers of a TV documentary based on his book.
The document, drafted by the McCanns' Portuguese lawyer Isabel Duarte and her colleague Ricardo Correia, says: 'The appellants understand the archiving of the case took place because during the inquiry, sufficient evidence had been collected to show the 'arguidos' had not committed any crime.'
They said the removal of the McCanns' 'arguido' status had legally binding connotations and claimed the Supreme Court judges' argument 'lacked foundation and could be easily altered'.
Accusing them of acting 'frivolously' and contradicting themselves with their statements about the reasons for the 2008 probe archive, they added: 'It cannot be stated that it is not acceptable that the archiving of the case is considered the equivalent to proof of innocence.'
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-4338616/McCanns-lose-final-court-case-silence-policeman.html
It's clear from the answers the Supreme Court gave that the McCann's lawyers had claimed that the archiving dispatch was a legally binding document and that the archiving was the quivalent to proof of innocence.
just noticed you are quoting the Daily mail when previously you have criticised the press for being innaccurate.
as ive said I think the document actually said evidence of innocence....do you have alink to the document to support your claim
-
Perhaps people can understand this article about the request for annulment better than they can understand court documents;
The couple's fight-back was laid out in a nine-page complaint.
It was lodged with the Supreme Court in February in a bid to invalidate its ruling rejecting the McCanns' libel appeal against Amaral and the makers of a TV documentary based on his book.
The document, drafted by the McCanns' Portuguese lawyer Isabel Duarte and her colleague Ricardo Correia, says: 'The appellants understand the archiving of the case took place because during the inquiry, sufficient evidence had been collected to show the 'arguidos' had not committed any crime.'
They said the removal of the McCanns' 'arguido' status had legally binding connotations and claimed the Supreme Court judges' argument 'lacked foundation and could be easily altered'.
Accusing them of acting 'frivolously' and contradicting themselves with their statements about the reasons for the 2008 probe archive, they added: 'It cannot be stated that it is not acceptable that the archiving of the case is considered the equivalent to proof of innocence.'
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-4338616/McCanns-lose-final-court-case-silence-policeman.html
It's clear from the answers the Supreme Court gave that the McCann's lawyers had claimed that the archiving dispatch was a legally binding document and that the archiving was the quivalent to proof of innocence.
Page 70
...(cf. Jónatas Machado, Freedom of Expression - Constitutional Dimensions, op. cit. pp. 566-7)
And let not be said, too, that the appellants were cleared by the order of filing the criminal proceedings.
In fact, that dispatch was not proclaimed by virtue of the Public Ministry having gained the conviction that the appellants had not committed any crime (cf. art. 277° of the CPP).
The filing, in this case, was decided because it was not possible for Public Ministry to obtain sufficient evidence of the practice of crimes by the appellants (cf. the cited art. 277°-2)
There is, therefore, a remarkable difference, and not merely a semantic one, between the legally admissible grounds of the filing order.
Thus, it does not appear acceptable to consider that the alluded dispatch, based on the insufficiency of evidence, should be treated as evidence of innocence.
Looks like im right again
-
The fact is that only police officers directly involved in the investigation know who is now considered a suspect.
They don't carry on after drastically reducing the team unless they are certain who is involved.
-
I have my own views on this which I don't normally share but on this occasion I will. In my view, Scotland Yard have drawn a total blank in this investigation and have no suspects at all.
So they are going to go back and ask for more money for the investigating, their reason for more money 'we have drawn a blank and there are no suspects' I think not.
-
So they are going to go back and ask for more money for the investigating, their reason for more money 'we have drawn a blank and there are no suspects' I think not.
No, they won't say that.
They will say something different like: other line of inquiries to pursue... big box - open lid.
Don't forget this is a GLOBAL search thanks to the McCanns.