The Complete Mystery of Madeleine McCann™
Hello!

A very warm welcome to The Complete Mystery of Madeleine McCann™ forum.

Please log in, or register to view all the forums, then settle in and help us get to the truth about what really happened to Madeleine Beth McCann. Please note that your username should be different from your email address!

When posting please be mindful that this forum is primarily about the death of a three year old girl.

(Please note: if you register with the sole intention of disrupting or spamming, please don't expect to be a member for too long.)

Many thanks,

Jill Havern
Forum owner

Joana Morais: Maddie parents accuse Supreme Court

Page 2 of 2 Previous  1, 2

View previous topic View next topic Go down

Re: Joana Morais: Maddie parents accuse Supreme Court

Post by MayMuse on 19.02.17 14:01

McCann v Amaral - Moral damages 

McCann v Supreme Court - Frivolous 




Are the public honestly expected to believe that two "ordinary doctors", who have openly admitted to their "neglect" of 3 babies, hold the power to continue on a litigious journey hashed out in the media, in a quest to prove "innocence" on moral and frivolous grounds? 

Really?

Erm, how does this find their daughter?

____________________
“Basically, I’m just an ordinary, straightforward guy who’s the victim of the biggest f***-up on this planet – if you’ll excuse the language.”

Robert Murat talking to David Jones, Daily Mail, 02 June 2007

MayMuse

Posts : 1606
Reputation : 1150
Join date : 2016-04-15

Back to top Go down

Re: Joana Morais: Maddie parents accuse Supreme Court

Post by sandancer on 19.02.17 14:20

@MayMuse wrote:McCann v Amaral - Moral damages 

McCann v Supreme Court - Frivolous 




Are the public honestly expected to believe that two "ordinary doctors", who have openly admitted to their "neglect" of 3 babies, hold the power to continue on a litigious journey hashed out in the media, in a quest to prove "innocence" on moral and frivolous grounds? 

Really?

Erm, how does this find their daughter?


They won't find her in a court .

They won't find her in the Vatican .

They won't find her on a T.V sofa .

Is their quest for innocence " hindering the search for Madeleine " ?
avatar
sandancer

Posts : 486
Reputation : 740
Join date : 2016-02-18
Age : 64
Location : Tyneside

Back to top Go down

Re: Joana Morais: Maddie parents accuse Supreme Court

Post by suzyjohnson on 19.02.17 14:30

I just don't understand any of this ....... 

if the complaint is that the Supreme Court said they were not cleared in 2008, what are the Supreme Court supposed to do about that? It's the truth, they weren't cleared by the PJ, we've known that for years. The McCanns surely can't have failed to realise that themselves can they?

or ...... do they expect the Supreme Court to say, it's ok, we've annulled it, you don't have to pay Amaral's legal fees after all? They're not likely to say that, the McCann's started all this in the first place.

____________________


suzyjohnson

Posts : 1192
Reputation : 261
Join date : 2013-03-03

Back to top Go down

Re: Joana Morais: Maddie parents accuse Supreme Court

Post by MayMuse on 19.02.17 14:33

@BlueBag wrote:F
@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.
The same as...They are obviously still "searching"? 

Apart from selling stickers, posters and good quality wristbands, hosting a website and a social media platform, lending their name to charity, attending galas and garnering media interview, hiring bogus detectives, writing a story etc, pray when did these parents actually physically search for their daughter? 

Apart from hiring expensive lawyers, attending court, more media "courting", shouting "innocence" wrapped up in litigation, all this "is obviously fighting it" ? 

What exactly are the McCanns "fighting".


Obviously........

Their reputation? 


Ludricous!

This was long lost in May 2007, the same as their daughter! 

IMO 




"Thou doth protest too much......"

____________________
“Basically, I’m just an ordinary, straightforward guy who’s the victim of the biggest f***-up on this planet – if you’ll excuse the language.”

Robert Murat talking to David Jones, Daily Mail, 02 June 2007

MayMuse

Posts : 1606
Reputation : 1150
Join date : 2016-04-15

Back to top Go down

Re: Joana Morais: Maddie parents accuse Supreme Court

Post by Nina on 19.02.17 20:03

@MayMuse wrote:
@BlueBag wrote:F
@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.
The same as...They are obviously still "searching"? 

Apart from selling stickers, posters and good quality wristbands, hosting a website and a social media platform, lending their name to charity, attending galas and garnering media interview, hiring bogus detectives, writing a story etc, pray when did these parents actually physically search for their daughter? 

Apart from hiring expensive lawyers, attending court, more media "courting", shouting "innocence" wrapped up in litigation, all this "is obviously fighting it" ? 

What exactly are the McCanns "fighting".


Obviously........

Their reputation? 


Ludricous!

This was long lost in May 2007, the same as their daughter! 

IMO 




"Thou doth protest too much......"
May Muse....................... goodpost

____________________
Not one more cent from me.
avatar
Nina

Posts : 2833
Reputation : 315
Join date : 2011-06-16
Age : 74

Back to top Go down

Re: Joana Morais: Maddie parents accuse Supreme Court

Post by MayMuse on 20.02.17 17:44

So it appears that Isabel Duarte has said that it is no more of a complaint a bit like an appeal or words to that effect? 

A bit like an appeal, is NOT an appeal. 
Assuming that the Supreme Court is THE court, and no higher court to "complain" to, then this complaint is to the Supreme Court  "complaining" about what was said in the Supreme Court ruling? 

Mmmmm, wondering which part of the said ruling has offended the McCanns so much to instigate a "complaint ? 

How does this affect Amaral and his win. 
Can he freeze their assets before they spend it on more court proceedings? 
Can the Supreme Court instil that all court costs, etc etc need to be paid in full by the McCanns before they even consider such a "complaint", that is even if it is proper to consider such said "complaint"? 

Is this "complaint" delaying tactics?

EDIT Just seen on the forum twitter feed a tweet by a JillyC;

Complaint: It's like taking a dress back to M & S because you don't like the colour.





big grin big grin big grin

____________________
“Basically, I’m just an ordinary, straightforward guy who’s the victim of the biggest f***-up on this planet – if you’ll excuse the language.”

Robert Murat talking to David Jones, Daily Mail, 02 June 2007

MayMuse

Posts : 1606
Reputation : 1150
Join date : 2016-04-15

Back to top Go down

Re: Joana Morais: Maddie parents accuse Supreme Court

Post by Grande Finale on 21.02.17 2:35

@suzyjohnson wrote:I just don't understand any of this ....... 

if the complaint is that the Supreme Court said they were not cleared in 2008, what are the Supreme Court supposed to do about that? It's the truth, they weren't cleared by the PJ, we've known that for years. The McCanns surely can't have failed to realise that themselves can they?

or ...... do they expect the Supreme Court to say, it's ok, we've annulled it, you don't have to pay Amaral's legal fees after all? They're not likely to say that, the McCann's started all this in the first place.

They don't like the truth, they prefer "A version of the truth"
  Rolling Eyes
avatar
Grande Finale

Posts : 138
Reputation : 61
Join date : 2013-02-02

Back to top Go down

Re: Joana Morais: Maddie parents accuse Supreme Court

Post by ChippyM on 21.02.17 6:44

As MayMuse said above, they can't be protecting their reputation , they damaged it themselves when they left 3 small children alone to be 'lost' and the whole case was fought on how they felt distress, not reputation.

This is all about protecting their abduction narrative but they seem deluded to think they can do this through overturning the supreme court decision.  The decision has already helped put all the stuff they didn't want coming out in the media.

I honestly don't know how Isabel Duarte can carry on representing them!

ChippyM

Posts : 1268
Reputation : 415
Join date : 2013-06-15

Back to top Go down

Re: Joana Morais: Maddie parents accuse Supreme Court

Post by Get'emGonçalo on 21.02.17 7:01

@ChippyM wrote:As MayMuse said above, they can't be protecting their reputation , they damaged it themselves when they left 3 small children alone to be 'lost' and the whole case was fought on how they felt distress, not reputation.

This is all about protecting their abduction narrative but they seem deluded to think they can do this through overturning the supreme court decision.  The decision has already helped put all the stuff they didn't want coming out in the media.

I honestly don't know how Isabel Duarte can carry on representing them!

For the same reason Carter-Ruck carry on representing them.
avatar
Get'emGonçalo


Posts : 9415
Reputation : 4734
Join date : 2009-11-25
Location : parallel universe

http://gerrymccan-abuseofpower-humanrights.blogspot.co.uk/

Back to top Go down

Re: Joana Morais: Maddie parents accuse Supreme Court

Post by Doug D on 21.02.17 7:58





I think this is probably the first time I have ever noticed MM trending on facebook, with a link to an Australian article:
 
http://www.couriermail.com.au/news/world/madeleine-mccanns-parents-will-fight-claims-she-died-they-staged-her-abduction-to-cover-it-up/news-story/7b0a8aa3dcb35e3d411cdb49073595ae
 
   
I am sure CM must have put some sort of block on 'trending' in the UK, otherwise they would be ‘starring’ regularly.

Doug D

Posts : 2379
Reputation : 813
Join date : 2013-12-03

Back to top Go down

Re: Joana Morais: Maddie parents accuse Supreme Court

Post by Doug D on 22.02.17 11:48


Doug D

Posts : 2379
Reputation : 813
Join date : 2013-12-03

Back to top Go down

Re: Joana Morais: Maddie parents accuse Supreme Court

Post by MayMuse on 22.02.17 12:01

Thanks, Excellent article, can anyone post it in full on the forum please, I've tried but for some reason it won't load for me.

 A war on the Portuguese justice system et al......sounds about right! 


One part jumped out 
Therefore, there is, a distinct difference, and not merely a semantic one, between the legally admissible grounds of the archiving dispatch. It doesn't therefore seem acceptable to consider the referred dispatch, which is based on the insufficiency of evidence, to be equated to proof of innocence. Thus we consider, the invocation of the violation of the principle of innocence should not be taken into account here, since that principle is not relevant for the decision of the question that we must decide.” 




And it states CLEARLY that the SC final decision was not based on any guilt or innocence through the archiving  process! ( that is my understanding) 
They focused on what the McCanns had brought against Amaral, and they (SC) upheld his right! 
So..............................

What are the MCCanns bleating on about, again and again and again they protest and sue anyone, rank or creed, rich or poor, authoritive bodies or the layman"..........

Who the hell are they?

____________________
“Basically, I’m just an ordinary, straightforward guy who’s the victim of the biggest f***-up on this planet – if you’ll excuse the language.”

Robert Murat talking to David Jones, Daily Mail, 02 June 2007

MayMuse

Posts : 1606
Reputation : 1150
Join date : 2016-04-15

Back to top Go down

Re: Joana Morais: Maddie parents accuse Supreme Court

Post by MayMuse on 22.02.17 12:53

Bumping to show Joana Morais new post ( thanks Dougd) about the SC and the McCanns latest "complaint" 
An important read. 
Link above

____________________
“Basically, I’m just an ordinary, straightforward guy who’s the victim of the biggest f***-up on this planet – if you’ll excuse the language.”

Robert Murat talking to David Jones, Daily Mail, 02 June 2007

MayMuse

Posts : 1606
Reputation : 1150
Join date : 2016-04-15

Back to top Go down

Re: Joana Morais: Maddie parents accuse Supreme Court

Post by jeanmonroe on 22.02.17 13:04

https://joana-morais.blogspot.co.uk/2017/02/waging-war-on-all-fronts.html

"Waging a war on all fronts."
-----------------------------------------------
In 'full'

by Joana Morais-   14 hrs ago  

by M. Carvalho | J. Morais

Since the Supreme Court ruling there was an onslaught of news articles published by the English media which are purely PR spin, a few of those were cut-and-paste in the Portuguese press without delving deep into the spurious claims made in those articles, failing to critically analyse and deconstruct the narrative, failing to provide the Portuguese public with accurate information. In fact most Portuguese newspapers published no more than a few excerpts of the Supreme Court ruling tailored by Lusa news agency, whilst others didn't even bother to publish anything at all.

Soon enough it felt like we were back in 2007, with puerile media wars, as was in the case of an UK tabloid claiming Kate and Gerry McCann had been offered huge bids for exclusive interviews on the 10th anniversary of their daughter's disappearance, a couple Portuguese newspapers echoing that story, and the same UK tabloid featuring the couple’s spokesman, Clarence Mitchell, berating the Portuguese media: “Any claims are spurious nonsense but fits in with the Portuguese agenda” - the Portuguese agenda, the notion that must be imprinted firmly on the mind of the UK public.

Later in the weekend another UK tabloid stalked Gonçalo Amaral in Lisbon, surreptitiously photographed him drinking a beer in a café, placed that photo on their cover, adding a tear-jerking statement by an unnamed McCann family friend: “It appears he has no idea of the hurt or anguish he continues to heap on Madeleine's poor parents”. Forgetting hypocritically to mention those who left their children alone, night after night, while having dinner and wine.

This is just media noise. Let alone regurgitated and dismissed theories by TV cops that lead to desperate media titles asking: “Does this startling theory reveal what REALLY happened to Madeleine McCann?”. Proving once again Betteridge's law of headlines that asserts that any headline that ends in a question mark can be answered by the word No!

The latest claims can be easily deconstructed.

“Their lawyer Isabel Duarte confirmed: “They have now made a complaint over the ruling to that court, it is sort of like an appeal.” Local reports yesterday said the couple were seeking to get the decision thrown out after launching a formal complaint against the judges’ findings.”

If it was lodged at the Supreme Court of Justice (STJ) it is neither an appeal or a formal complaint per se, from what we have read we believe that it must be a request for an annulment of the ruling. A “formal complaint” would have to be, for example, concerning any judges biases, or if there had been any malpractice. In that case the complaint would have been made to the Superior Magistrates Council. The request for annulment lodged to the Supreme court will likely be reviewed by a plenary of judges or by the STJ president.

“Their lawyer confirmed they are fighting the judgement – which could cost them hundreds of thousands and wipe out the “Find Madeleine” fund.”

The request itself for an annulment of the ruling will not wipe out the fund, whilst the bills for their lawyers, image consultants, PR people and fees for legal costs on proceedings started and lost by the couple might. Nevertheless, according to an UK newspaper the McCanns still have “nearly £500,000 invested in an unknown venture”. There is also an ongoing investigation costing over £12 million to UK taxpayers, and an unknown status review of the Portimão's Judiciary Police investigation assigned to a small team of the Judiciary Police in Porto.

Today, the Daily Mail, has published a few excerpts of the leaked nine-pages request lodged at the Supreme Court of Justice last Friday, 17th January.

 The document, drafted by the McCanns' Portuguese lawyer Isabel Duarte and 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 it could be easily altered 'lacked foundation.'
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.'
Their main contentious point seems to be about the archiving dispatch. Let's be clear that it was the couple, as applicants, who, via their lawyer brought the matter of innocence and the statement Kate and Gerry McCann had been declared innocent through the shelving of the investigation process.

They claimed:
- “It harms the honour, good name and image of any innocent person, and already previously declared innocent, by the archiving dispatch of the criminal process (whose conclusion is that there are no means of proof or indicia that the person committed any crime), a book, a documentary and an interview external to this criminal process, and the fact that these communication methods do not even make a reference to this archiving dispatch, but mention the exact opposite of what it is there ascertained.” (page 40, 2.2 C)

- “And it further harms the honour, good name and the image of any innocent and declared innocent (exonerated) citizen, that the communication methods that intend and manage to disrespect and weaken the judgement reached by magistrates of the Country, sole holders of the penal action, representing the citizen by them targeted, in the eyes of the remaining citizens, as a suspect of the practice of crimes (...)” (page 41, 2.2 D)

What the Supreme Court judges declared concerning these matters is exactly this:

. “It should be noted that in the present process, the matter of their penal responsibility is not in dispute, that is, their innocence or culpability, concerning the facts that lead to their daughter's disappearance, so it does not have to be appreciated here.
What is under discussion is, and only that, the civil responsibilities of the defendants, due to the fact that they expressed and divulged the thesis/opinion previously mentioned with respect to that disappearance. So much so that the outcome of this process is not susceptible of calling into question the extra processual dimension of the presumption of innocence. That is, even if the action (lawsuit) is rejected, that will not imply, even in the general public eye, any consideration regarding the responsibilities of the applicants, since such an outcome can never be equated to an assertion of guilt.”
.  “Moreover, we are faced with a decision of archivement by the Public Ministry, which is liable to be counteracted through various ways. (...)”
. “Therefore, if the previously mentioned archiving dispatch is not in the strict sense a judicial decision, nor does it have a permanent nature, it would be even less justified calling upon the principle of presumption of innocence to restrict the freedom of expression.”
. “And it cannot be said too that the applicants were declared innocent through the archiving dispatch of the criminal process. In truth, the aforementioned dispatch was not issued due to the fact the Public Ministry had acquired the certainty that the applicants had not practise any crime. Such archival, as was the case, was determined since it was not possible for the Public Ministry to obtain sufficient evidence of the practise of crimes by the applicants.
Therefore, there is, a distinct difference, and not merely a semantic one, between the legally admissible grounds of the archiving dispatch. It doesn't therefore seem acceptable to consider the referred dispatch, which is based on the insufficiency of evidence, to be equated to proof of innocence. Thus we consider, the invocation of the violation of the principle of innocence should not be taken into account here, since that principle is not relevant for the decision of the question that we must decide.”

It can't be stressed enough that it was the McCanns who brought these specific points in their appeal to the Supreme Court, therefore the judges had to address them. The Supreme Court judges decision is totally correct in a legal perspective: the McCanns cannot claim they were declared innocent through the archiving dispatch.

It is quite extraordinary that the claimants do not like the application of the law if it does not suit them and have now embarked in what can be perceived as media pressure and an insulting campaign directed at the Supreme Court judges who have merely addressed the points of their appeal, raised by themselves.

Maybe this was their main intention. To bring those matters into the lawsuit in an attempt to prove to the world they had been cleared. Wrong law action, wrong section of the courts to do that. Perhaps it is also part of a devised strategy to show via the media how they are being treated unfairly by Portugal, to have some sort of grounds to go to the ECHR against the Portuguese state, who knows?

It seems obvious the McCanns are now waging a war on Gonçalo Amaral, on facts, on the Portuguese legislation, on the Portuguese Supreme Court judges, on Portugal itself.

jeanmonroe

Posts : 5815
Reputation : 1657
Join date : 2013-02-07

Back to top Go down

Re: Joana Morais: Maddie parents accuse Supreme Court

Post by MayMuse on 22.02.17 13:08

@jeanmonroe
Thank you roses

____________________
“Basically, I’m just an ordinary, straightforward guy who’s the victim of the biggest f***-up on this planet – if you’ll excuse the language.”

Robert Murat talking to David Jones, Daily Mail, 02 June 2007

MayMuse

Posts : 1606
Reputation : 1150
Join date : 2016-04-15

Back to top Go down

Re: Joana Morais: Maddie parents accuse Supreme Court

Post by Get'emGonçalo on 22.02.17 13:18

Yes, thank you jeanmonroe...just in case Joana closes her blog again at some point. 

In fact, please wherever possible, everyone should post full articles for that reason, and give the link too in case people want to comment on the original site.

Articles get whooshed, blogs get closed etc...
avatar
Get'emGonçalo


Posts : 9415
Reputation : 4734
Join date : 2009-11-25
Location : parallel universe

http://gerrymccan-abuseofpower-humanrights.blogspot.co.uk/

Back to top Go down

Re: Joana Morais: Maddie parents accuse Supreme Court

Post by jeanmonroe on 22.02.17 13:23

"SPOT the DIFFERENCE"

The document, drafted by the McCanns’ Portuguese lawyer Isabel Duarte and 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.”

However, in fact, the Portuguese Attorney General said, in 2008.

"By the dispatch of today’s date (21.07.2008 ) issued by the two magistrates of the Public Ministry competent in the case, it was decided that the inquiry relating to the disappearance of the minor Madeleine McCann will be archived due to insufficient proof of any crime having been perpetrated by the arguidos."

SO, the McCanns have 'claimed'/are 'claiming': "that 'archiving', took place BECAUSE 'sufficient evidence, had been collected' to prove they didn't commit a crime" but, BUT, the PAG has said, on 'record', "that 'archiving', took place BECAUSE 'there was insufficient evidence' to prove they, the 'arguidos', had commited a crime."

Can YOU.... 'spot' the 'difference'?

Rhetorical!

jeanmonroe

Posts : 5815
Reputation : 1657
Join date : 2013-02-07

Back to top Go down

Re: Joana Morais: Maddie parents accuse Supreme Court

Post by MayMuse on 22.02.17 13:27

@MayMuse wrote:
Thanks, Excellent article, can anyone post it in full on the forum please, I've tried but for some reason it won't load for me.

 A war on the Portuguese justice system et al......sounds about right! 


One part jumped out 
Therefore, there is, a distinct difference, and not merely a semantic one, between the legally admissible grounds of the archiving dispatch. It doesn't therefore seem acceptable to consider the referred dispatch, which is based on the insufficiency of evidence, to be equated to proof of innocence. Thus we consider, the invocation of the violation of the principle of innocence should not be taken into account here, since that principle is not relevant for the decision of the question that we must decide.” 




And it states CLEARLY that the SC final decision was not based on any guilt or innocence through the archiving  process! ( that is my understanding) 
They focused on what the McCanns had brought against Amaral, and they (SC) upheld his right! 
So..............................

What are the MCCanns bleating on about, again and again and again they protest and sue anyone, rank or creed, rich or poor, authoritive bodies or the layman"..........

Who the hell are they?
I cannot see how this "complaint " can be accepted? 

Have the MCCanns now put themselves in more jeopardy?confused

____________________
“Basically, I’m just an ordinary, straightforward guy who’s the victim of the biggest f***-up on this planet – if you’ll excuse the language.”

Robert Murat talking to David Jones, Daily Mail, 02 June 2007

MayMuse

Posts : 1606
Reputation : 1150
Join date : 2016-04-15

Back to top Go down

Re: Joana Morais: Maddie parents accuse Supreme Court

Post by Judex on 22.02.17 13:32

This is the full article, using 'copy and paste'.

Waging a war on all fronts
by Joana Morais 14 hrs ago


by M. Carvalho | J. Morais

Since the Supreme Court ruling there was an onslaught of news articles published by the English media which are purely PR spin, a few of those were cut-and-paste in the Portuguese press without delving deep into the spurious claims made in those articles, failing to critically analyse and deconstruct the narrative, failing to provide the Portuguese public with accurate information. In fact most Portuguese newspapers published no more than a few excerpts of the Supreme Court ruling tailored by Lusa news agency, whilst others didn't even bother to publish anything at all.

Soon enough it felt like we were back in 2007, with puerile media wars, as was in the case of an UK tabloid claiming Kate and Gerry McCann had been offered huge bids for exclusive interviews on the 10th anniversary of their daughter's disappearance, a couple Portuguese newspapers echoing that story, and the same UK tabloid featuring the couple’s spokesman, Clarence Mitchell, berating the Portuguese media: “Any claims are spurious nonsense but fits in with the Portuguese agenda” - the Portuguese agenda, the notion that must be imprinted firmly on the mind of the UK public.

Later in the weekend another UK tabloid stalked Gonçalo Amaral in Lisbon, surreptitiously photographed him drinking a beer in a café, placed that photo on their cover, adding a tear-jerking statement by an unnamed McCann family friend: “It appears he has no idea of the hurt or anguish he continues to heap on Madeleine's poor parents”. Forgetting hypocritically to mention those who left their children alone, night after night, while having dinner and wine.

This is just media noise. Let alone regurgitated and dismissed theories by TV cops that lead to desperate media titles asking: “Does this startling theory reveal what REALLY happened to Madeleine McCann?”. Proving once again Betteridge's law of headlines that asserts that any headline that ends in a question mark can be answered by the word No!

The latest claims can be easily deconstructed.

“Their lawyer Isabel Duarte confirmed: “They have now made a complaint over the ruling to that court, it is sort of like an appeal.” Local reports yesterday said the couple were seeking to get the decision thrown out after launching a formal complaint against the judges’ findings.”

If it was lodged at the Supreme Court of Justice (STJ) it is neither an appeal or a formal complaint per se, from what we have read we believe that it must be a request for an annulment of the ruling. A “formal complaint” would have to be, for example, concerning any judges biases, or if there had been any malpractice. In that case the complaint would have been made to the Superior Magistrates Council. The request for annulment lodged to the Supreme court will likely be reviewed by a plenary of judges or by the STJ president.

“Their lawyer confirmed they are fighting the judgement – which could cost them hundreds of thousands and wipe out the “Find Madeleine” fund.”

The request itself for an annulment of the ruling will not wipe out the fund, whilst the bills for their lawyers, image consultants, PR people and fees for legal costs on proceedings started and lost by the couple might. Nevertheless, according to an UK newspaper the McCanns still have “nearly £500,000 invested in an unknown venture”. There is also an ongoing investigation costing over £12 million to UK taxpayers, and an unknown status review of the Portimão's Judiciary Police investigation assigned to a small team of the Judiciary Police in Porto.

Today, the Daily Mail, has published a few excerpts of the leaked nine-pages request lodged at the Supreme Court of Justice last Friday, 17th January.
The document, drafted by the McCanns' Portuguese lawyer Isabel Duarte and 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 it could be easily altered 'lacked foundation.'
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.'
Their main contentious point seems to be about the archiving dispatch. Let's be clear that it was the couple, as applicants, who, via their lawyer brought the matter of innocence and the statement Kate and Gerry McCann had been declared innocent through the shelving of the investigation process.

They claimed:
- “It harms the honour, good name and image of any innocent person, and already previously declared innocent, by the archiving dispatch of the criminal process (whose conclusion is that there are no means of proof or indicia that the person committed any crime), a book, a documentary and an interview external to this criminal process, and the fact that these communication methods do not even make a reference to this archiving dispatch, but mention the exact opposite of what it is there ascertained.” (page 40, 2.2 C)

- “And it further harms the honour, good name and the image of any innocent and declared innocent (exonerated) citizen, that the communication methods that intend and manage to disrespect and weaken the judgement reached by magistrates of the Country, sole holders of the penal action, representing the citizen by them targeted, in the eyes of the remaining citizens, as a suspect of the practice of crimes (...)” (page 41, 2.2 D)

What the Supreme Court judges declared concerning these matters is exactly this:

. “It should be noted that in the present process, the matter of their penal responsibility is not in dispute, that is, their innocence or culpability, concerning the facts that lead to their daughter's disappearance, so it does not have to be appreciated here.
What is under discussion is, and only that, the civil responsibilities of the defendants, due to the fact that they expressed and divulged the thesis/opinion previously mentioned with respect to that disappearance. So much so that the outcome of this process is not susceptible of calling into question the extra processual dimension of the presumption of innocence. That is, even if the action (lawsuit) is rejected, that will not imply, even in the general public eye, any consideration regarding the responsibilities of the applicants, since such an outcome can never be equated to an assertion of guilt.”
. “Moreover, we are faced with a decision of archivement by the Public Ministry, which is liable to be counteracted through various ways. (...)”
. “Therefore, if the previously mentioned archiving dispatch is not in the strict sense a judicial decision, nor does it have a permanent nature, it would be even less justified calling upon the principle of presumption of innocence to restrict the freedom of expression.”
. “And it cannot be said too that the applicants were declared innocent through the archiving dispatch of the criminal process. In truth, the aforementioned dispatch was not issued due to the fact the Public Ministry had acquired the certainty that the applicants had not practise any crime. Such archival, as was the case, was determined since it was not possible for the Public Ministry to obtain sufficient evidence of the practise of crimes by the applicants.
Therefore, there is, a distinct difference, and not merely a semantic one, between the legally admissible grounds of the archiving dispatch. It doesn't therefore seem acceptable to consider the referred dispatch, which is based on the insufficiency of evidence, to be equated to proof of innocence. Thus we consider, the invocation of the violation of the principle of innocence should not be taken into account here, since that principle is not relevant for the decision of the question that we must decide.”

It can't be stressed enough that it was the McCanns who brought these specific points in their appeal to the Supreme Court, therefore the judges had to address them. The Supreme Court judges decision is totally correct in a legal perspective: the McCanns cannot claim they were declared innocent through the archiving dispatch.

It is quite extraordinary that the claimants do not like the application of the law if it does not suit them and have now embarked in what can be perceived as media pressure and an insulting campaign directed at the Supreme Court judges who have merely addressed the points of their appeal, raised by themselves.

Maybe this was their main intention. To bring those matters into the lawsuit in an attempt to prove to the world they had been cleared. Wrong law action, wrong section of the courts to do that. Perhaps it is also part of a devised strategy to show via the media how they are being treated unfairly by Portugal, to have some sort of grounds to go to the ECHR against the Portuguese state, who knows?

It seems obvious the McCanns are now waging a war on Gonçalo Amaral, on facts, on the Portuguese legislation, on the Portuguese Supreme Court judges, on Portugal itself.


Judex

Posts : 88
Reputation : 85
Join date : 2014-04-30

Back to top Go down

Re: Joana Morais: Maddie parents accuse Supreme Court

Post by MayMuse on 22.02.17 13:40

@jeanmonroe wrote:"SPOT the DIFFERENCE"

The document, drafted by the McCanns’ Portuguese lawyer Isabel Duarte and 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.”

However, in fact, the Portuguese Attorney General said, in 2008.

"By the dispatch of today’s date (21.07.2008 ) issued by the two magistrates of the Public Ministry competent in the case, it was decided that the inquiry relating to the disappearance of the minor Madeleine McCann will be archived due to insufficient proof of any crime having been perpetrated by the arguidos."

SO, the McCanns have 'claimed'/are 'claiming': "that 'archiving', took place BECAUSE 'sufficient evidence, had been collected' to prove they didn't commit a crime" but, BUT, the PAG has said, on 'record', "that 'archiving', took place BECAUSE 'there was insufficient evidence' to prove they, the 'arguidos', had commited a crime."

Can YOU.... 'spot' the 'difference'?

Rhetorical!
Yes, I noticed that but thought there must be something else I missed as it was confusing (easily done  winkwink )  BUT this is apparently on advice of their lawyer? 

Would this be considered an "own goal"?

Waiting eagerly for the SC response.

____________________
“Basically, I’m just an ordinary, straightforward guy who’s the victim of the biggest f***-up on this planet – if you’ll excuse the language.”

Robert Murat talking to David Jones, Daily Mail, 02 June 2007

MayMuse

Posts : 1606
Reputation : 1150
Join date : 2016-04-15

Back to top Go down

Page 2 of 2 Previous  1, 2

View previous topic View next topic Back to top


 
Permissions in this forum:
You cannot reply to topics in this forum