Were the media wrong to settle defamation actions out of court?

[John]

The SC has had two rulings against it in the last 6 months or so it is not always correct... Duarte argued the McCann's were entitled to the presumption of innocence...the SC said no...because they hadn't been cleared..
That was the reason the SC gave...which I find bizarre

We all know that the justice system in Portugal bears little resemblance to that which we are used to in the UK.  It will be interesting to see how this all pans out.

[Sunny]

If Duarte had told the McCanns that the AG statement had to show they were innocent before they proceeded to sue Goncalo Amaral then it would have saved them an awful lot of money (sorry fund money)

[G-Unit]

The SC has had two rulings against it in the last 6 months or so it is not always correct... Duarte argued the McCann's were entitled to the presumption of innocence...the SC said no...because they hadn't been cleared..
That was the reason the SC gave...which I find bizarre

I think you've got the argument back-to-front. The only reason the judges mentioned the matter of the McCanns being 'cleared' was in answer to Duarte's claim that they were;

already cleared before through the filing dispatch of a criminal investigation
http://miscarriageofjustice.co/index.php?topic=7937.0

It seems she wasn't listening two years earlier when the first Judge mentioned that the report wasn't a judgement and was inconclusive.
http://miscarriageofjustice.co/index.php?topic=9827.msg476310#msg476310

[G-Unit]

If Duarte had told the McCanns that the AG statement had to show they were innocent before they proceeded to sue Goncalo Amaral then it would have saved them an awful lot of money (sorry fund money)

Unfortunately the prosecutors made a mistake in the report which led people to reach a wrong conclusion.

[Sunny]

Unfortunately the prosecutors made a mistake in the report which led people to reach a wrong conclusion.

I'm confused. Can you explain please

[G-Unit]

I'm confused. Can you explain please

The prosecutors quoted Article 277/1 when they wrote the report. The SC judges said it should have been 277/2. There's a large thread which explores and explains this (as well as other things) which you might like to plough through at some stage.
http://miscarriageofjustice.co/index.php?topic=8465.0

[Mr Gray]

I think you've got the argument back-to-front. The only reason the judges mentioned the matter of the McCanns being 'cleared' was in answer to Duarte's claim that they were;

already cleared before through the filing dispatch of a criminal investigation
http://miscarriageofjustice.co/index.php?topic=7937.0

It seems she wasn't listening two years earlier when the first Judge mentioned that the report wasn't a judgement and was inconclusive.
http://miscarriageofjustice.co/index.php?topic=9827.msg476310#msg476310

From my cite Duarte claimed they were entitled to the presumption of innocence....do you have a link where Duarte claimed they were cleared by the archiving despatch

[Sunny]

From my cite Duarte claimed they were entitled to the presumption of innocence....do you have a link where Duarte claimed they were cleared by the archiving despatch

Could you give me a link to where you posted the cite that Duarte claimed they were entitled to the presumption of innocence I can't see it and have read back several pages of your posts.

[Mr Gray]

Could you give me a link to where you posted the cite that Duarte claimed they were entitled to the presumption of innocence I can't see it and have read back several pages of your posts.

Well read back again....it's there today..post235

[G-Unit]

From my cite Duarte claimed they were entitled to the presumption of innocence....do you have a link where Duarte claimed they were cleared by the archiving despatch

My cite was in the post you replied to, but Duarte's claim is also mentioned in your earlier cite (post 235)

Your cite says Duarte invoked the presumption of innocence to restrict Amaral's right to freedom of expression.
She argues that they are entitled to be presumed innocent because they were cleared by the archiving dispatch.
The Supreme Court said they weren't. so her argument wasn't valid.

[Sunny]

Well read back again....it's there today..post235

I have seen what you call a link and it is simply this statement from the media

1. The McCanns have invoked the principle of presumption of innocence to justify the restrictions they want imposed on dr. Amaral's freedom of expression;

That is in relation to their appeal with the ECHR not the original case as far as I can see. Also no mention of Duarte either.

Your original post From my cite Duarte claimed they were entitled to the presumption of innocence....do you have a link where Duarte claimed they were cleared by the archiving despatch

Where does Duarte say anything on there.

[Mr Gray]

I have seen what you call a link and it is simply this statement from the media

1. The McCanns have invoked the principle of presumption of innocence to justify the restrictions they want imposed on dr. Amaral's freedom of expression;

That is in relation to their appeal with the ECHR not the original case as far as I can see. Also no mention of Duarte either.

Your original post From my cite Duarte claimed they were entitled to the presumption of innocence....do you have a link where Duarte claimed they were cleared by the archiving despatch

Where does Duarte say anything on there.

you are totally wrong...it is not a media statemnt..and its nothing to do with the application to the ECHR...it relates to teh SC ruling..

Its about time gunit provided the cite i have asked for then we can discuss it in more detail

[Mr Gray]

I think you've got the argument back-to-front. The only reason the judges mentioned the matter of the McCanns being 'cleared' was in answer to Duarte's claim that they were;

already cleared before through the filing dispatch of a criminal investigation
http://miscarriageofjustice.co/index.php?topic=7937.0

It seems she wasn't listening two years earlier when the first Judge mentioned that the report wasn't a judgement and was inconclusive.
http://miscarriageofjustice.co/index.php?topic=9827.msg476310#msg476310

again...do you have a cite where duarte claims the ruling cleared the mccanns...without a cite you have no right to claim it..

It is totally immaterial that the archiving breport is not a judgeemnt...duarte claimed...cite provided....that the mccanns were entitled to the presumption of innocence...the SC said they were not as they had not been cleared

[Mr Gray]

I think you've got the argument back-to-front. The only reason the judges mentioned the matter of the McCanns being 'cleared' was in answer to Duarte's claim that they were;

already cleared before through the filing dispatch of a criminal investigation
http://miscarriageofjustice.co/index.php?topic=7937.0

It seems she wasn't listening two years earlier when the first Judge mentioned that the report wasn't a judgement and was inconclusive.
http://miscarriageofjustice.co/index.php?topic=9827.msg476310#msg476310

perhaps its you who has it back to front...

cite required for this claim by Duarte...my cite shows she merely invoked the presumpion of innocence...you have yet to supply a cite

[Mr Gray]

Quote


2. The Supreme Court stated, in its ruling, that the above is no argument because the McCanns were not considered innocent by the investigation and the case was archived because not enough evidence was found to charge them.

so the SC said the Mccanns had no right to the presumption of innocence because the investigation didnt consider them innocent