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

Much simpler then that.

Hyperventilate.

Test worthless.

Job done.

So much for subjective "experts".

oh well if it's that simple to fool the tester then I wonder why they haven't done one?

In fact Jeremy Kyle's clients now know how to fool the tester as well as their cheated on partners.  lol.

plebgate wrote:oh well if it's that simple to fool the tester then I wonder why they haven't done one?

In fact Jeremy Kyle's clients now know how to fool the tester as well as their cheated on partners.  lol.

Except that many people are aware that it is fairly easy to get an inconclusive lie test. On JK it seems to be done with various legal and illegal drugs.

If the McCann's took a lie detector, and came back that they both had inconclusive results, it would not help their case. Especially not with 2 inconclusives! (bad English, I know).

mumof6 wrote:

plebgate wrote:oh well if it's that simple to fool the tester then I wonder why they haven't done one?

In fact Jeremy Kyle's clients now know how to fool the tester as well as their cheated on partners.  lol.

Except that many people are aware that it is fairly easy to get an inconclusive lie test. On JK it seems to be done with various legal and illegal drugs.

If the McCann's took a lie detector, and came back that they both had inconclusive results, it would not help their case. Especially not with 2 inconclusives! (bad English, I know).

Exactly - I don't watch his show very often but when I have and the result has come back as inconclusive the audience haven't seemed to be too impresssed.

The court of public opinion not impressed and that would be the point (imo) if people are deciding on whether to donate to the fund.

mumof6 wrote:

plebgate wrote:oh well if it's that simple to fool the tester then I wonder why they haven't done one?

In fact Jeremy Kyle's clients now know how to fool the tester as well as their cheated on partners.  lol.

Except that many people are aware that it is fairly easy to get an inconclusive lie test. On JK it seems to be done with various legal and illegal drugs.

If the McCann's took a lie detector, and came back that they both had inconclusive results, it would not help their case. Especially not with 2 inconclusives! (bad English, I know).

I agree, they would just not do it. It's a control issue. If they did it, it would also give some of the concerns people have legitimacy. It's like the reconstruction, they refuse to do it so there is a type of stalemate but that stalemate is in their control, the ball is still in their court. There are possible outcomes outside their control with a reconstruction or lie detector test. I think they only gamble when the odds are really in their favour.

More detail from the Supreme Court......

[You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]

Carrry On Doctor wrote:More detail from the Supreme Court......

[You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]

Is there a translator in the house?

Some of it has been translated by textusa at the end of the comments:
 
[You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]

The applicants alluded to the “ostensible contradiction of grounds”, because in the acórdão it was considered that the archiving of the crime process was determined because it was not possible for the Public Ministry to obtain sufficient evidence of the practice of crimes by the applicants, while in the archiving dispatch what is said is that it occurred "because there existed no indicia that they have committed any crime, in terms of the provisions of Article 277 no. 1 of the CPP."

It will be stated, immediately, that the nullity invoked consists in there being contradiction between the grounds and the decision and not between the grounds.

In any case, it will always be said that the invoked contradiction doesn’t exist because, in our view, although the archiving dispatch alludes to the provisions of Article 277 nº1 (note that point 15 of the proven factual matter does not include the reference to that article), what is relevant is the content of the dispatch and not the citation of the legal provision.

Now, what stands out, manifestly, from that dispatch is that it was not issued because the Public Ministry had acquired the conviction that the applicants did not commit any crime, but because it was not possible for the Public Ministry to obtain sufficient indicia of the practice of crime by the applicants.

That is, the archiving will have been determined under Article 277 nº2 of the CPP, and not under nº1, of that article, although the latter is the article quoted in the dispatch.

Because of that it was understood, in the acórdão, that it would not seem acceptable to consider that the referred dispatch should be equated as evidence of inocentation [inocentação].

In fact, it is not said anywhere in that dispatch, that there was collected enough proof that no crime was committed or that the then defendants (now applicants) did not practice it in any way. (as per Art. 277, nº. 1).

The fact that the "Note for the Media” issued by the PGR on the same day the archiving dispatch was issued informs that the inquiry could be reopened "if new elements of proof appeared which would originate to serious, pertinent and consequential diligences", points out, precisely, to the conclusion that the dispatch was issued under the provisions of article 277, nº2 of the CPP.

In fact, if the inquiry had been closed under the provisions of nº2 of the same article, it could not be reopened (as per CPP, commented, 2016, 2nd edition, by Henriques Gaspar, Santos Cabral, Maia Costa, Oliveira Mendes, Pereeira Madeira e Henriques da Graça, pgs 929, 932 and 933).

In any event, it was only intended to counter the applicants' assertion that, with the alluded dispatch, had been made proof of the inocentation.

Thus, in one way or another, whatever the grounds for the archiving of the inquiry and the preclusive effects of the respective decision (the latter has no "judged case" strength, which reports exclusively to decisions of a jurisdictional nature, but that of a "decided case" or "almost judged case" ” – as per the quoted pgs 929 e 932), we would always understand that public criticism and public scrutiny of the functioning of justice, as stated in the acórdão, were not impeded.

That is, we would always conclude that the principle of presumption of innocence would not be relevant for the decision on the question that was to be decided.

It will therefore be concluded that the acórdão doesn’t suffer with the nullities of b) and c) of the nº1 of artº 616º of the CPC, applicable ex vi of the combined provisions of arts 666º, nº1 and 685º of the same Code.

By what was said, the argumentation of nullities of pgs 2793 and following is rejected, sentencing the applicants in the costs of the incident that caused them.

So there we have it, and the case was archived.....

"because it was not possible for the Public Ministry to obtain sufficient indicia of the practice of crime by the applicants "


I suppose if you take this sentence, mix the words up, take some out, and add others in, you get "totally exonerated".

It doesn't matter which way things are carved up/rearranged/or whichever you wish to analyse it.

The McCanns took Goncalo Amaral to a civil court and lost.

Quite why the McCanns chose a court battle in Portugal where they actually did manage to turn up with Martin Brunt kneeling before them (there are photograph references of this) beats most ordinary people.

What the McCanns did to silence Tony Bennett was to never enter a British Court. Tony Bennett was faced with a contempt of court trial where he was faced with a QC and several barristers with around 125 breaches of an undertaking (which they were asked to slim down) he had made because he didn't have enough money to fight the likes of Carter Ruck being thrust at him.

The Daily Express gave an extraordinary amount of money to the McCanns when they were taken to task.

I'm a bit confused about something, so sorry if this is a silly question, but I think I saw a comment somewhere on here a few days ago (can't seem to find it now) where someone mentioned the PJ investigation being closed. I thought it had reopened and was still ongoing? Has that changed recently? Thanks.

Constablekid wrote:I'm a bit confused about something, so sorry if this is a silly question, but I think I saw a comment somewhere on here a few days ago (can't seem to find it now) where someone mentioned the PJ investigation being closed. I thought it had reopened and was still ongoing? Has that changed recently? Thanks.

I can only say that no police investigation into a missing child is ever closed.  Shelved pending further evidence but never closed. 

That's all I think needs to be kept in mind.

My understanding of legalese is on a par with my understanding of Portuguese - zero.

Still, it matters not.  Dr Amaral's outstanding victory can't be diluted by mere words.  Who cares about any document confirming the Lisbon Supreme Courts ruling or translation thereof.

But it was declared reopened in 2013. Has it been formally declared closed? Thanks for responding x
[You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]

Constablekid wrote:But it was declared reopened in 2013. Has it been formally declared closed? Thanks for responding x
[You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]

Not to my knowledge . 

I do however feel that the Portuguese authorities were compromised into re-opening the case by the UK authorities back in 2013.   Thinking about it, if the UK (as in Operation Grange) were wishing to invade Portuguese territory to further their investigation, which I believe was/is the case, I guess the Portuguese had no option but to re-open the case.

In short, I don't think the Portuguese police are actively continuing to investigate the case, only co-operating with the UK forces because they have no choice.

I sympathize with the Portuguese.  They are being treated infamously by the UK establishment - all because two British non-entities failed to care for their precious little child.

Verdi wrote:My understanding of legalese is on a par with my understanding of Portuguese - zero.

Still, it matters not.  Dr Amaral's outstanding victory can't be diluted by mere words.  Who cares about any document confirming the Lisbon Supreme Courts ruling or translation thereof.

Yes it does matter! And anyone with half a brain should care!
There is an excellent English translation on here of this very important Supreme Court document.
Please read it first, reflect, and then give us the benefit, as always, of your unparalleled wisdom...