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

[Sunny]

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

But if the investigation didn't consider the McCanns innocent then they haven't been "cleared" or are indisputably innocent either.   Therefore the McCanns lawyer should never have used their self proclaimed "innocence" as a tool in a law suit. She should have known Portuguese law better than that it would seem.

[jassi]

But if the investigation didn't consider the McCanns innocent then they haven't been "cleared" or are indisputably innocent either.   Therefore the McCanns lawyer should never have used their self proclaimed "innocence" as a tool in a law suit. She should have known Portuguese law better than that it would seem.

When desperate, lawyers will try any ploy.

[G-Unit]

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

Are you actually reading posts before you reply to them? The cite was in the post you replied to, taken from the transcript of her submission to the SC. She said the McCanns were;

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

The judges reply was that Duarte's argument was invalid because it was based on a misunderstanding of the archiving dispatch;

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://miscarriageofjustice.co/index.php?topic=7937.15

[Mr Gray]

But if the investigation didn't consider the McCanns innocent then they haven't been "cleared" or are indisputably innocent either.   Therefore the McCanns lawyer should never have used their self proclaimed "innocence" as a tool in a law suit. She should have known Portuguese law better than that it would seem.

THe mccanns were entitled to the presumption of innocence...The SC saidthey were not....the SC are therefore wrong

[Mr Gray]

Are you actually reading posts before you reply to them? The cite was in the post you replied to, taken from the transcript of her submission to the SC. She said the McCanns were;

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

The judges reply was that Duarte's argument was invalid because it was based on a misunderstanding of the archiving dispatch;

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://miscarriageofjustice.co/index.php?topic=7937.15

That is not quote from Duarte...its a quote from the SC...so you have no direct quote as to what Duarte said...
according to my cite...which is from a reputable source...Duarte invoked the presumption of innocence but was refused on the basis that the investiagtion did not consider them innocent...which is obviously not valid reason to deny them

[Sunny]

Testing.

OK now I have a post

It would appear that the SC had "serious concerns" about the abduction thesis put forward by the McCanns as well as their claim of innocence.

This is according to an article about the SC ruling BY TRACEY KANDOHLA

One way to get a post in.

[G-Unit]

But if the investigation didn't consider the McCanns innocent then they haven't been "cleared" or are indisputably innocent either.   Therefore the McCanns lawyer should never have used their self proclaimed "innocence" as a tool in a law suit. She should have known Portuguese law better than that it would seem.

If you read the whole Legal Summary there are clearly still unanswered questions. When the case was archived 'insufficient evidence' was the reason reported in the Portuguese media, although a lot of the UK media reported 'McCanns cleared'.

[Mr Gray]

If you read the whole Legal Summary there are clearly still unanswered questions. When the case was archived 'insufficient evidence' was the reason reported in the Portuguese media, although a lot of the UK media reported 'McCanns cleared'.

Duarte requested presumption of innocence...the SC denied them this

[Vertigo Swirl]

Duarte requested presumption of innocence...the SC denied them this

you only get that privilege when you’re a suspect, once you stop being a suspect the courts can presume whatever they like about you, it would seem.

[Mr Gray]

you only get that privilege when you’re a suspect, once you stop being a suspect the courts can presume whatever they like about you, it would seem.

I dont think that is true...

In the Allen vs UK case, the ECHR emphasised the importance of the presumption after the acquittal or dismissal of the criminal investigation, explaining that this principle prevents suspects or defendants in such cases are treated as if they were in fact responsible for the criminal offences of which they were accused and stressing that without this second level of protection – the level of full respect for acquittal or archiving – the presumption of innocence would remain illusory or merely ideal.

[G-Unit]

That is not quote from Duarte...its a quote from the SC...so you have no direct quote as to what Duarte said...
according to my cite...which is from a reputable source...Duarte invoked the presumption of innocence but was refused on the basis that the investiagtion did not consider them innocent...which is obviously not valid reason to deny them

It was Duarte's argument to the Supreme Court. Remember that the request to overturn the SC ruling, which you quoted, was written by Dr Ricardo Correia Afonso, not by Isabel Duarte.

[Robittybob1]

You're getting yourself wound up about nothing.

To which I replied.

To which Engarth replied.

You then jumped in with

To which I replied
Clearly I never mentioned the judgement you did,so bearing that in mind can you provide a cite where the McCanns were libeled in Portugal under Portuguese law?

It shouldn't matter under which law you are working.  Libel is libel in anyone's language.
I seem to remember it wasn't so much as to restrict libel but to stop GA publishing his book, they considered that would have been a case of restricting GA's right of free speech.  Then it become a battle between the two rights, which had priority in this case, the McCann's right to a good name or GA's right to free speech.

[Mr Gray]

It was Duarte's argument to the Supreme Court. Remember that the request to overturn the SC ruling, which you quoted, was written by Dr Ricardo Correia Afonso, not by Isabel Duarte.

so where is Duarte;s argument...in the request to overturn the SC judgement ....the argument was that the McCanns should benefit from the presumption of innocence.....its there in the original portugues.....the Sc said no

[jassi]

It shouldn't matter under which law you are working. Libel is libel in anyone's language.
I seem to remember it wasn't so much as to restrict libel but to stop GA publishing his book, they considered that would have been a case of restricting GA's right of free speech.  Then it become a battle between the two rights, which had priority in this case, the McCann's right to a good name or GA's right to free speech.

Not so, different countries have different interpretations

[Robittybob1]

Not so, different countries have different interpretations

Cite please.