**updated** Appeal rejected. McCann's request for annulment of the Supreme Court's decision

by **Jill Havern** 19.03.17 13:06

18 Mar 2017

Arguição de Nulidade do Acórdão

Below is a copy of the McCann's request for annulment of the Supreme Court´s decision, filed by the couple´s lawyer on the 16th of February, 2017. We understand that the filing of this appeal has a suspensive effect on the Supreme Court´s ruling.

The request alleges that the Supreme Court´s decision "lacks a foundation (...) in stating that one cannot invoke the principle of presumption of innocence in order to restrict the right to freedom of expression, because it is based on the erroneous presumption that the archiving of the criminal investigation 'was determined because it was not possible for the Public Ministry to obtain enough indications of the practice of crimes by the appellants'".

In case you are struggling with the legalese (we do), here is what we understand to be the reasoning behind the request:

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;

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.

3. The McCanns, because they believe the above argument is false, request for the Supreme Court's decision to be nullified.

More here: http://pjga.blogspot.co.uk/2017/03/arguicao-de-nulidade-do-acordao.html

Translated by Anne Guedes here: http://www.gerrymccannsblogs.co.uk/Annulment_request.htm

by Doug D 19.03.17 13:59

Largely pages of legalese gobbledigook, but towards the end of the Anne Guedes translation on the Pamalam site:

http://www.gerrymccannsblogs.co.uk/Annulment_request.htm

Page 9

‘Attached is a document proving that justice fees were paid.’

No additional document attached.

Do we have any idea what ‘justice fees’ this relates to?

by 23 Librae 19.03.17 14:15

Are the McCanns basically saying that because there is no evidence to charge them that they should be presumed innocent?

I don't know much about law but I don't think no evidence = innocence. Surely no court would support that conclusion. They couldn't possibly win could they?

by Doug D 19.03.17 14:17

Couple of snips from the latest textusa blog:

Textusa:

…………..As a friend has just said, it looks like a school paper that had to have 9 pages, and the student could only come up with 4 pages of information.

AnneGuedes19 Mar 2017, 03:14:00  I bet that this document will have some difficulty just to be read by the STJ judges, unless they have patience and benevolence to spare. Luckily it's extremely short, but arrogant, yes, though it is evident that Dra Duarte's assistant, who signed it (he's the one who made the final kilometrical and soporific allegations of the first instance judgement), reads in documents, if he reads, only the reality that suits him.   

 AnneGuedes19 Mar 2017, 03:34:00  I'm not Portuguese but I feel ashamed. The poor guy, always sent on the battle front when any chance of surviving is excluded, is what we call in French a fuse. Being highly meltable, the fuse protects big or little brother.

http://textusa.blogspot.co.uk/2017/03/extreme-backfiring.html#comment-form

by Joss 19.03.17 14:26

The case against Goncalo Amaral had nothing to do with the McCann's presumption of guilt or innocence, but was decided by the Supreme Court of Portugal it had to do with Dr. Amaral's right to freedom of expression/opinion just like any other Portugese citizen, of which the McCann's lost the libel case against him for that very fact. I think the SC even stated they were not trying to prove guilt or innocence against the McC's in the disappearance of Madeleine. That would be for a criminal court to determine in a Trial.

by **Tony Bennett** 19.03.17 14:28

23 Librae wrote:Are the McCanns basically saying that because there is no evidence to charge them that they should be presumed innocent?

I don't know much about law but I don't think no evidence = innocence. Surely no court would support that conclusion. They couldn't possibly win could they?

The way I interpret the McCanns' 9-page submission for the nullification of the Supreme Court's decision is this:

1 There was a police investigation...

2 At the end of that investigation, there was no evidence to bring charges against us...

3 That means we must be treated as innocent in the eyes of the law...

4 Therefore, although the European Convention on Human Rights decrees that people have the right to freedom of expression, they should not have free expression to be able to suggest that someone who is innocent in the eyes of the law (like us) may actually be guilty. Therefore Amaral's book must be banned

by Joss 19.03.17 14:38

Tony Bennett wrote:
23 Librae wrote:Are the McCanns basically saying that because there is no evidence to charge them that they should be presumed innocent?

I don't know much about law but I don't think no evidence = innocence. Surely no court would support that conclusion. They couldn't possibly win could they?
The way I interpret the McCanns' 9-page submission for the nullification of the Supreme Court's decision is this:

1 There was a police investigation...

2 At the end of that investigation, there was no evidence to bring charges against us...

3 That means we must be treated as innocent in the eyes of the law...

4 Therefore, although the European Convention on Human Rights decrees that people have the right to freedom of expression, they should not have free expression to be able to suggest that someone who is innocent in the eyes of the law (like us) may actually be guilty. Therefore Amaral's book must be banned

The McCann's are full of it. The Police investigation is still ongoing far as i know isn't it? And what police investigation are they talking about because i don't think the one in the UK counts does it?

by Guest 19.03.17 14:56

That means we must be treated as innocent in the eyes of the law...

4 Therefore, although the European Convention on Human Rights decrees that people have the right to freedom of expression, they should not have free expression to be able to suggest that someone who is innocent in the eyes of the law (like us) may actually be guilty. Therefore Amaral's book must be banned

Suspects are innocent on the eyes of the law, this is true.

No one is saying they are guilty, at least no one with a brain is.

They are suspects though.

They have not been cleared.

by plebgate 19.03.17 14:59

Are we any nearer to knowing when a decision will be made about this complaint?

I wonder if it will be before the 10th anniversary. If it isn't then I also wonder whether any questions/answers in any interview with Mr. & Mrs. will be along the lines of we cannot comment as there are ongoing legal issues?

Does anyone know whether the ruling of the Supreme Court still stands until the complaint has been heard?

by **Jill Havern** 19.03.17 15:07

plebgate wrote:Are we any nearer to knowing when a decision will be made about this complaint?

I wonder if it will be before the 10th anniversary. If it isn't then I also wonder whether any questions/answers in any interview with Mr. & Mrs. will be along the lines of we cannot comment as there are ongoing legal issues?

Does anyone know whether the ruling of the Supreme Court still stands until the complaint has been heard?

Dr Amaral's assets remain frozen - if that helps answer your question.

by plebgate 19.03.17 15:10

Thanks GEG.

I would like to see an interview with Rocky as the 10th anniverary approaches and for him to be able to tell the World the hardship he has had to endure.

by **Jill Havern** 19.03.17 15:13

plebgate wrote:Thanks GEG.

I would like to see an interview with Rocky as the 10th anniverary approaches and for him to be able to tell the World the hardship he has had to endure.

So would I...it's worse than is reported.

by suzyjohnson 19.03.17 16:02

1) Don't the McCanns realise that if the Supreme Court were to set a precedent that Amaral (or anyone else for that matter) cannot express his opinion, that that would mean that no one would ever be able to give their opinion on any crime or investigation? And that anyone who was guilty of anything could hide behind this ruling?

2) It seems to me so odd that the McCanns even approached the courts in the first place with the assertion that they had been cleared by the PJ, they must have known that was never the case?

by Joss 19.03.17 16:16

The supreme court ruled Tuesday that "Goncalo Amaral did not abuse the liberty of expression", as his claims remained "within the limits tolerated in an open and democratic society".
The decision in Portugal is Final.

by Joss 19.03.17 16:29

Judges added their job was not to decide if the McCanns bore any criminal responsibility over Madeleine’s disappearance.
And they said it would be wrong to draw any inferences about the couple’s guilt or innocence from their ruling.

Kate and Gerry, of Rothley, Leics, did not want to respond to the judges’ findings last night.
https://www.thesun.co.uk/news/2819783/removal-of-kate-and-gerrys-formal-suspect-status-does-not-mean-they-are-innocent-in-disappearance-of-daughter-madeleine-mccann-judges-say/?CMP=spklr-_-Editorial-_-FBPAGE-_-TheSun-_-20170208-_-803548825

by Cmaryholmes 19.03.17 16:33

Are the Mccanns just buying time ?

by lj 19.03.17 17:03

The diabolical duo has to be careful what they wish for. If they get it their way, all those people falsely accused by them from what ever crime they could think of, might be suing them.

by **Jill Havern** 19.03.17 17:10

Cmaryholmes wrote:Are the Mccanns just buying time ?

Yes.
Surely Duarte would have advised them of the likely outcome, as is her job?
The longer they buy time the longer Dr Amaral continues to suffer.
I can't say too much, but what they continue to do to Dr Amaral is nothing short of barbaric.
And when it's his turn, I hope he hits them with as much force as they've dished out to him (and his wife and children).
All of that for the sake of a book?
Nah, they're like a couple of pitbulls out to kill a kitten.
To think the NHS harbours so-called doctors such as these is frightening.

by Liz Eagles 19.03.17 18:13

ay

Get'emGonçalo wrote:
Cmaryholmes wrote:Are the Mccanns just buying time ?
Yes.
Surely Duarte would have advised them of the likely outcome, as is her job?
The longer they buy time the longer Dr Amaral continues to suffer.
I can't say too much, but what they continue to do to Dr Amaral is nothing short of barbaric.
And when it's his turn, I hope he hits them with as much force as they've dished out to him (and his wife and children).
All of that for the sake of a book?
Nah, they're like a couple of pitbulls out to kill a kitten.
To think the NHS harbours so-called doctors such as these is frightening.

Scotland Yard has been gifted with another six months of funding for a dramatically scaled-down investigation. Gone are the days of the helicopter and two, yes TWO different Crime Watch productions - these would be the illustrious non-reproduction of what really happened -prompting the general public of UK and Germany to go looking for what?

by nglfi 19.03.17 18:36

Surely this argument is erroneous on the basis that there wasn't 'no' evidence to charge them. I rather thought there was insufficient evidence. Obviously if there was none we wouldn't all be sitting here discussing it.

by Judex 19.03.17 19:01

nglfi wrote:Surely this argument is erroneous on the basis that there wasn't 'no' evidence to charge them. I rather thought there was insufficient evidence. Obviously if there was none we wouldn't all be sitting here discussing it.

Precisely!

A reminder of some verbatim quotes...

"The archiving of the case was determined by the fact that public prosecutors hadn't managed to obtain sufficient evidence of the practice of crimes by the appellants.
"There is therefore a significant, and not merely a semantic difference, between the legally admissible foundations of the archive ruling.
It doesn't therefore seem acceptable that the ruling, based on the insufficiency of evidence, should be equated to proof of innocence."

"Assistant Chief Constable for Leicestershire police gave this written statement: 'While one or both of them may be innocent there is no clear evidence that eliminates them from involvement in Madeleine’s disappearance.'”

"Kate McCann's lawyer Carlos Pinto de Abreu: 'If you were Portuguese this would be enough to put you in prison.'"

by jeanmonroe 20.03.17 12:38

Page 04
"....to formulate any lucid, sensate, serious and honest conclusion about the circumstances under which the child was removed from the apartment (whether dead or alive, whether killed in a neglectful homicide or an intended homicide, whether the victim of a targeted or opportunistic abduction), nor even to produce a consistent prognosis about her destiny and inclusively – and that's the most dramatic - to establish whether she is still alive or, as it seems the more likely, she is dead."
--------------------------------
"They cling onto a glimmer of hope that their daughter, who would now be aged 13, could still be alive."

NOT with the 'wording', they have 'approved', in their 'complaint/sort of appeal' they're NOT!

"whether dead or alive" "whether killed in a neglectful homicide or an intended homicide"

"....or, as it seems, the more likely, she is dead."

Those few little words, INCLUDED in, and approved by the McCanns, in their 9 page 'complaint' to the PSC, just about 'put the kybosh on' (to put an end to something, to terminate or stymie) their 'claims' that 'she is unharmed' and to 'donate to our private ltd company 'fund', to 'search' for a LIVE Madeleine'

Doesn't it?

jta: WHAT is a 'neglectful homicide'?

by Verdi 20.03.17 12:56

The McCanns are playing with fire - their fingers will be burned.

Not only that - they are showing what mercenary vindictive people they truly are. Most definitely NOT inherently good!

by Verdi 20.03.17 13:00

Cmaryholmes wrote:Are the Mccanns just buying time ?

Well, they're certainly not buying his book are they big grin

?

The Truth of the Lie by Goncalo Amaral

http://goncaloamaraltruthofthelie.blogspot.com/

by SuspiciousMinds 20.03.17 13:40

Verdi wrote:
Cmaryholmes wrote:Are the Mccanns just buying time ?
Well, they're certainly not buying his book are they ?

The Truth of the Lie by Goncalo Amaral

http://goncaloamaraltruthofthelie.blogspot.com/

Don't be too sure - I expect they had to buy a copy of his book and spend lots of money having it translated before they sued him. Snigger...! :D

updated Appeal rejected. McCann's request for annulment of the Supreme Court's decision