Joana Morais: Maddie parents accuse Supreme Court

by **Jill Havern** 18.02.17 19:02

18 February 2017

Maddie parents accuse Supreme Court (Updated)

Kate and Gerry ask for the ruling to be annulled

Joana Morais: Maddie parents accuse Supreme Court DSC_2570

The McCann couple, the parents of Maddie, the English girl that went missing in the Algarve in 2007, called for the nullity of the judgement of the Supreme Court of Justice, calling it frivolous (rash, imprudent) "because it was not possible for the Public Prosecutor to obtain sufficient evidence of crimes by the appellants".

The Supreme Court confirmed the decision of the Court of Appeals to revoke the payment of a compensation of 500 thousand euros by the former PJ inspector Gonçalo Amaral.

in Correio da Manhã, February 18, 2017

Joana Morais: Maddie parents accuse Supreme Court Justice-statue

Even though we don't know if this is a request to annul the Supreme Court ruling or if it is, as was published in the UK media, a formal complaint against the ruling or judges, a few thoughts:

An annulment can be requested of a ruling, even of a Supreme Court ruling. This must be done on a point of law. Since the ruling is extremely well structured, there are no technical points they can pick, the likely outcome is that this will be denied .

Fact of the matter is that the judges wrote several pages to come to the conclusion of the not cleared explanation and were explicit that it was not up to the Supreme Court to deliberate on their innocence or guilt.

There is a massive difference between being innocent and being cleared by an archival. The McCanns can always claim they are innocent but they cannot claim they have been declared innocent by the archival.

This issue was only addressed as a reply to the points in the appeal, points that were made by the McCanns themselves.

An annulment can only be considered on points of law, which would never include frivolity as an allegation.

In no way do we believe that frivolity may be invoked regarding the explanation of what a shelving of an investigation process means, about three Supreme Court judges when writing a structured and impartial decision which is available to read in its entirety and due context.

Finally, it is possible the judges will consider the frivolity allegation as defamatory and take legal action against the couple.

by **Jill Havern** 18.02.17 19:10

"Finally, it is possible the judges will consider the frivolity allegation as defamatory and take legal action against the couple."

big grin

Why the heck don't they just go back to Portugal and let the PJ conclude the investigation? If they're innocent what's the problem with doing the reconstruction, answering the questions etc?

Only when the investigation is complete can they, and the Tapas 7, go about their lives free of this big black cloud, surely?

Enter Operation Grange to the rescue...?

by coati mundi 18.02.17 19:15

Joanna,

which body would consider their complaint? Surely the judges of the Supreme Court (or any other court) coukd not be compelled to review their own, legally considered, decision and judgement, Surely their complaint would have to go to a higher body. Does the Portuguese system have the equivalent of the English law's Judicial Review?

I can't see who they would lodge the complaint with, except a certain pink-faced body.

by nglfi 18.02.17 19:16

Get'emGonçalo wrote:"Finally, it is possible the judges will consider the frivolity allegation as defamatory and take legal action against the couple."

Why the heck don't they just go back to Portugal and let the PJ conclude the investigation? If they're innocent what's the problem with doing the reconstruction, answering the questions etc?

Only when the investigation is complete can they, and the Tapas 7, go about their lives free of this big black cloud, surely?

Enter Operation Grange to the rescue...?

Exactly this. Why are they making life so hard for themselves? They've said they're innocent so it must be true. Why all this pointless litigation? Answer all questions, assist in every way possible??

by **Jill Havern** 18.02.17 19:23

They are the ones who deliberately let the deadline pass to keep the investigation open.

They are the ones who allowed the investigation to be shelved.

They are the ones who have allowed themselves to not be deemed innocent.

All of this is of their own making, but still they continue to blame others.

by Praiaaa 18.02.17 19:26

To accuse such an august body of 'frivolity' is breathtakingly arrogant.

by Guest 18.02.17 19:30

Praiaaa wrote:To accuse such an august body of 'frivolity' is breathtakingly arrogant.

I believe the whole point is so they can be seen to be fighting, to combat the negative attention they have had since the ruling.

Kate and Gerry still has to go to work, have a social life, go to church (stiill?) and have answers for people who ask him about it.

"We're obviously fighting it".

There is no way the decision will be changed.

by **Jill Havern** 18.02.17 19:41

BlueBag wrote:
Praiaaa wrote:To accuse such an august body of 'frivolity' is breathtakingly arrogant.
I believe the whole point is so they can be seen to be fighting, to combat the negative attention they have had since the ruling.

Kate and Gerry still has to go to work, have a social life, go to church (stiill?) and have answers for people who ask him about it.

"We're obviously fighting it".

There is no way the decision will be changed.

Yes, and they have to try to protect the twins when they go to school.

Far better to fight to the death than unburden themselves with the truth and give Maddie the justice she deserves.

by plebgate 18.02.17 20:03

I agree with GEG when she says why don't they just go back to Portugal and answer all questions put to them and that includes the rest of the Tapas crew.

Why not let Kelly from the Telly arrange a lie detector test? Lie detectors may not be admissible in a court of law, but when people on the Jeremy Kyle show pass a lie detector test the audience quickly change their negative image of the person to that of a positive one and give loud applause and accept that the person is telling the truth. I think I know what I would do.

by **xklamation** 18.02.17 20:19

coati mundi wrote:Joanna,

which body would consider their complaint? Surely the judges of the Supreme Court (or any other court) coukd not be compelled to review their own, legally considered, decision and judgement, Surely their complaint would have to go to a higher body. Does the Portuguese system have the equivalent of the English law's Judicial Review?

I can't see who they would lodge the complaint with, except a certain pink-faced body.

Hello,

The Supreme Court is the higher court, there is no higher body. We still don't know if this is a formal complaint or a request to nullify the ruling, nor we know for sure what was alleged. Keeping this in mind, if the McCanns lodged a formal complaint (disciplinary measures) against a STJ judge(s) then it will be considered by the Superior Council of Magistrates. On the other hand, if they requested an annulment of the ruling, in principle, it will be evaluated by the STJ President or by a plenary of judges.

Some information on this page that might interest you on the structure of the Portuguese judicial network

Code:: http://www.dgpj.mj.pt/sections/english-version/strategic-planning/annexes/the-portuguese-judicial

by plebgate 18.02.17 20:23

So if for some reason Mr. & Mrs. have cause to bring out the strawberry vodkas should their complaint be upheld do they really believe that Rocky is just going to sit back and take it?

by sallypelt 18.02.17 20:35

Praiaaa wrote:To accuse such an august body of 'frivolity' is breathtakingly arrogant.

Is this the nature of their complaint?

Frivolous Claims Law and Legal Definition

frivolous claim in legal terms refers to a lawsuit or motion in a lawsuit motivated by an intent merely to harass, delay or embarrass the opposition. In order to be found frivolous, the claim must have no arguable basis in law or fact. Frivolous acts can include filing the lawsuit itself, a motion for a court action in a lawsuit, an answer of a defendant to a complaint which does not deny, contest, prove or controvert anything, or an appeal which is without any valid supporting arguments.
A judge may award sanctions for a frivolous lawsuit, motion or appeal. Such sanctions may include awarding the opponent costs, attorney fees, and in at least one case, the offending attorney was ordered to attend law school courses. The award of sanctions may be made by the court on its own initiative or after a motion by another party.
The following is an example of a state statute dealing with frivolous claims:
"If the action is brought by a private citizen and the court finds that the action was frivolous or motivated by bad faith, costs and attorney fees may be taxed to the person."

by Verdi 18.02.17 21:02

I think this is largely media hype, it always happens when the McCanns are shown in a negative light for any reason. Next week it will be some new aspiration to sensationalize on their precarious position.

They would be extremely foolish to continue this masquerade - particularly with a lawyer like Isabel Duarte representing them. Not quite your Carter Ruck puissance - more like trial by ducking stool.

by **sharonl** 18.02.17 21:35

plebgate wrote:I agree with GEG when she says why don't they just go back to Portugal and answer all questions put to them and that includes the rest of the Tapas crew.

Why not let Kelly from the Telly arrange a lie detector test? Lie detectors may not be admissible in a court of law, but when people on the Jeremy Kyle show pass a lie detector test the audience quickly change their negative image of the person to that of a positive one and give loud applause and accept that the person is telling the truth. I think I know what I would do.

Careful. We have already had bogus sightings, bogus media reports, bogus PIs, bogus websites etc. All we need now is the dreaded Lorraine and a bogus lie detector, it could happen.

by sandancer 18.02.17 21:49

Sometimes it feels like we're stuck in the middle of a really bad am dram play ( apologies to anyone who does amateur dramatics )

You know , the scenery wobbles , props are missing or fall over !

The script is dire , lines are forgotten , cues are missed actors trip over !

The plot is totally unbelievable ,yet no matter how much the audience boos and heckles
They carry on convinced " It'll be alright on the night "

This "show " has gone on for almost 10 years , is it not time to bring the curtain down on the Kate and Gerry show ?

Just as an afterthought , does anyone remember 'Acorn Antiques ' ?

by Amy Dean 18.02.17 23:03

Indeed yes!

by sallypelt 18.02.17 23:11

Joana Morais: Maddie parents accuse Supreme Court Z

Madeleine McCann's parents have launched a legal battle to fight claims they faked her abduction to cover up her death

by **Hobs** 18.02.17 23:11

plebgate wrote:I agree with GEG when she says why don't they just go back to Portugal and answer all questions put to them and that includes the rest of the Tapas crew.

Why not let Kelly from the Telly arrange a lie detector test? Lie detectors may not be admissible in a court of law, but when people on the Jeremy Kyle show pass a lie detector test the audience quickly change their negative image of the person to that of a positive one and give loud applause and accept that the person is telling the truth. I think I know what I would do.

They could always be interviewed by Peter Hyatt or Avinoam Sapir :)

by MayMuse 19.02.17 2:56

What an absolute farce, they sure know how to win friends and influence people".....Not!

Thoughts are with Mr Amaral and the SC,let's hope they tell them to jog on,in my opinion.

by plebgate 19.02.17 8:53

?

sharonl wrote:
plebgate wrote:I agree with GEG when she says why don't they just go back to Portugal and answer all questions put to them and that includes the rest of the Tapas crew.

Why not let Kelly from the Telly arrange a lie detector test? Lie detectors may not be admissible in a court of law, but when people on the Jeremy Kyle show pass a lie detector test the audience quickly change their negative image of the person to that of a positive one and give loud applause and accept that the person is telling the truth. I think I know what I would do.

Careful. We have already had bogus sightings, bogus media reports, bogus PIs, bogus websites etc. All we need now is the dreaded Lorraine and a bogus lie detector, it could happen.

Oh err, hadn't thought about that Sharon. As Hobs suggests, maybe one or two impartial witnesses in attendance?

by plebgate 19.02.17 9:01

I really cannot understand how the Supreme Court judges would have left any room for their ruling to be "chucked out" so to speak. They must have been aware that it was a possiblity their ruling could be challenged and would have made sure that their decision could not be found to be frivolous, sloppy or anything else along those lines?

by Carrry On Doctor 19.02.17 9:07

Start a crowd fund to pay for an independent lie detector test to prove the SC wrong, silence the trolls, and get the cloud of guilt lifted once and for all.

Where can I donate ?

by Mirage 19.02.17 9:34

plebgate wrote:I really cannot understand how the Supreme Court judges would have left any room for their ruling to be "chucked out" so to speak. They must have been aware that it was a possiblity their ruling could be challenged and would have made sure that their decision could not be found to be frivolous, sloppy or anything else along those lines?

Probably why they took an absolute age deliberating, Plebbers. Well over a year to examine every jot and tittle. It wasn't as if they were unaware of the lengths this outfit would go to after the procession of "witnesses" (I use the word loosely) they paraded before the court. Pike, Loach, Wright spring to mind.

And as you rightly pointed out elsewhere, not one of the tapas group.

ETA. Close friend, Fiona Payne, for example, who rushed out to the Lisbon court in an earlier hearing and spoke to reporters on behalf of her friend after the revelation of the dream episode came up during proceedings.

by plebgate 19.02.17 9:45

Yes Mirage, those witnesses had their expenses paid for out of the fund. For what purpose?
Fi Payne turned up to support Mrs but even though she was in Portugal did not set foot in the witness box?
All most odd in my book.

Two more questions I would like Kelly from the Telly to ask.

Edited to insert word not - second paragraph.

by Mirage 19.02.17 9:52

plebgate wrote:Yes Mirage, those witnesses had their expenses paid for out of the fund. For what purpose?
Fi Payne turned up to support Mrs but even though she was in Portugal did not set foot in the witness box?
All most odd in my book.

Two more questions I would like Kelly from the Telly to ask.

Edited to insert word not - second paragraph.

Ha ha. Crossed in the post. Great minds think alike! (Re Fiona Payne)