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

18 Mar 2017

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

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

Translated by Anne Guedes here: [You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]

Largely pages of legalese gobbledigook, but towards the end of the Anne Guedes translation on the Pamalam site:
 
[You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]
 
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?

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?

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



                       

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

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.

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

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?

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.

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?

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.

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.

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.

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?

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.

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

Are the Mccanns just buying time ?

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.

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.

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?

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.

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.'"

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'?

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!

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

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

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

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

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

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.

put like this it almost feels as if they have a point ...

Courtesy of Joana. These are the last 3 paragraphs from the article in the link below:

Gonçalo Amaral was notified of the request for the annulment of the Supreme Court´s ruling. As there is always the right to adversarial proceedings, Gonçalo Amaral can respond, saying that the ruling of the Supreme Court of Justice does not warrant any rectification or criticism. Then all parties have to await for the ruling of the Supreme Court's conference.

The totality of the judges of the civil section is the conference, the request will be assessed by all judges of the civil section of the Supreme Court of Justice, including those who have deliberated on the judgement called into question. The mechanism should be similar to the distribution of the appeals to the Supreme Court of Justice.

As for the forecast date of the decision, in the Supreme Court of Justice the deadlines are extended. The judges will first submit the draft judgement, then the conference of judges will gather in order to assess the draft, then they will see if there are more votes in favour of or against, then it will be decided what the ruling is, after the judge rapporteur will write the final wording of the judgement according to what was decided by the conference, then the conference will reconvene for the final vote of the decision and for the presentation of the defeated votes, if there are any.

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


It makes for nervous reading, I have to admit.

Thx to Joana

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

On the McCanns' request for annulment of the Supreme Court´s ruling

by Joana Morais 3 hrs ago

“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 appellants. 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.” in Extracts from the Supreme Court's ruling

by M. Carvalho | J. Morais

In a concise manner, the grounds invoked by the Appellants come down to a technicality.

The Appellants argue the Public Prosecutor's Archiving Dispatch filed the criminal investigation under the Civil Procedure Code (CPC) article 277.º, no.1, and that the Supreme Court's ruling states they were not exonerated within the no.2 of that same article.

In other words, they allege the Public Ministry prosecutor José de Magalhães e Menezes, and the joint prosecutor João Melchior Gomes archived the process because they were not suspects of any crimes and that, on the other hand, the Supreme Court's judgement was wrong to state that the Archiving Dispatch established that there was not enough evidence gathered to bring charges.

We will go into the legal explanations in the second section of this article, but we would like to stress that the appellants and their lawyer fully dismiss the integrant reasoning and legal groundings of the archiving dispatch, holding on exclusively to this particular article.

This is invoked by the Appellants within the framework of the presumption of innocence, despite the fact that this particular point was never in question. The Supreme Court of Justice went to great lengths to explain this point, concluding: “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 Appellants, since such an outcome can never be equated to an assertion of guilt.”

We will just stress again that the presumption of innocence assists any defendant of a penal case, i.e. of a criminal process. It must not be confused with being exonerated nor cleared.

In simpler terms, the archival of the criminal investigation does not exonerate the Appellants but these will always benefit from the presumption of innocence should criminal proceedings eventually be brought against the Appellants. Even though we believe this will never take place for lack of will and true commitment by the authorities in both countries.

Finally, the Appellants seem to have opened an unexpected Pandora's box, their actions may now force a written correction of the article that should have been used in the Archiving Dispatch .

Quid iuris?

Legal explanations with the valuable insight of a Portuguese jurist

The judgement of the Supreme Court of Justice (STJ) shows that their arguments are based on two points: firstly, that Gonçalo Amaral's thesis goes against the right to the presumption of innocence that they enjoy; secondly, that there is a collision of rights between their honour and their good name and the right to freedom of expression of Gonçalo Amaral and, in this case, the later must cede the right to freedom of expression.

As it is known, the Supreme Court of Justice ruled that there was no depreciation of the right to presumption of innocence, even because that issue was not in question. And, they are correct in judgement. The right to presumption of innocence is extended to all criminal proceedings, but here we are not in the context of a criminal process, but rather an action seeking to assess Gonçalo Amaral's civil liability for the violation of the McCanns' rights. Therefore, there is no connection between what Gonçalo Amaral has said and the principle of presumption of innocence in this case, since the presumption of innocence is only related to the criminal process and here we are in the context of civil proceedings. The only issue to assess is which of the fundamental rights in conflict should prevail, and from then a conclusion can be drawn as to whether or not Gonçalo Amaral has violated the McCanns' fundamental rights and therefore has to compensate them.

It should be noted this issue was started with the decision of the first instance court which one could argue had an erroneous assessment of the situation of conflict of rights - it was the first instance that messed up by accepting the argument that the principle of the presumption of innocence was in question at a civil case. Concerning this matter, see pages 68 and following of the Supreme Court´s ruling.

Then, the other question is, according to the Supreme Court's ruling (page 70), the conclusion of the Public Ministry in the Archiving Dispatch is wrong. To clarify: the Archiving Dispatch has a reasoning. Throughout that reasoning, the prosecutor goes on to say how the facts were ascertained, how blood was found in the car rented by the McCanns, that there were traces of blood in the apartment, how the most likely thesis is that of homicide, but also that it was necessary to admit the possibility of abduction. Then the prosecutor goes on to say that the canine markers were not confirmed, that no evidence of the homicide was collected, but that Madeleine could have been killed in the apartment, even though it was not possible to conclude by whom; that the abduction is a possibility to be taken into account due to the witnesses, etc. That is, the reasoning of the Public Ministry suggests that the filing is due to lack of sufficient evidence that the McCanns have committed the crime. However, upon finishing the dispatch, the prosecutor affirms that the archival is done under art. 277/1 of the CPP, which states that the archival is determined when it is concluded that the defendants did not commit the crimes.

In short: the reasoning of the Archiving Dispatch goes in the sense of art. 277/2 of the CPP, but in the last paragraph the prosecutor states the archiving is done under the terms of art. 277/1, that is to say, the reasoning goes towards supporting that "there was not enough evidence collected to prove that it was the McCanns" but the last sentence goes in the sense of "it's archived because it was concluded that it was not the McCanns who committed the crime".

Obviously, there is a contradiction in the Archiving Dispatch. And what matters is the reasoning. And the reasoning goes in the sense that it did not collect sufficient evidence that it was the McCanns who committed the crime. This is what both the Lisbon Court of Appeals and the Supreme Court of Justice state in their judgements.

Now, it can only be concluded that it was not the arguido who committed the crime in two situations: when it is concluded that there is no crime or when it is concluded that the crime was not practised by the arguido, but by another person.

However, what the Public Ministry prosecutors conclude is that there was a crime (if not of homicide, at least of abduction). In this scenario, only if it was known who the real author was, that is, only if the evidence was conclusive in respect to another person could the prosecutor state "it was not the McCanns". In fact, what the Public Ministry concluded was: (1) there was a crime; (2) there is no conclusive evidence that it was the McCanns. This is the result of the reasoning of the Archiving Dispatch. Therefore, the filing was made under art. 277/2 and not of art. 277/1, as, certainly by mistake, the prosecutor affirms.

It turns out that the McCanns cling, with tooth and nail, to the last paragraph of the Archiving Dispatch and to the mention of art. 277/1 to claim that the Public Ministry states that they were not the ones who committed the crime, and that, thus the Archival Dispatch innocents them. And therefore, any claim, whatever the source, that they are guilty or have something to do with their daughter's disappearance is false and therefore offensive to their honour. This is how crafty the McCann's thesis is.

The problem with their thesis is that it expires if we take into account the reasoning of the Archiving Dispatch - that is, that there is insufficient evidence, so far, to prove that it was them. And that's where it all goes: the McCanns are not right because the Archiving Dispatch did not exonerate them (nor it could, unless it was known that the author of the crime was someone else).

The Lisbon Court of Appeals explained that the McCanns were not right and why. The Supreme Court of Justice limited itself to corroborating the position of the Court of Appeals: “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.”

Now, let us look at what their reasoning for the annulment of the judgement is.

The McCanns allege the Supreme Court has given as proven fact that the Archiving Dispatch, where the aforementioned last paragraph referring article 277/1 of the CPP is included, was due to the fact that it was concluded that they had not committed a crime.

Then, they argue: if the Supreme Court gave that as proven fact, it cannot then decide that the archiving was done under the article 277/2, nor it can, therefore conclude that they were not exonerated by the Public Ministry. And also, the Supreme Court cannot therefore state that their right to honour has not been violated because, if there was a declaration of innocence, any statement to the contrary violates the good name and reputation of the McCanns.

Therefore, they say, there is a contradiction between the proven facts and the decision of the judgement, which renders it null, an annulment they now request.

It is our understanding that they are not correct because there is no contradiction. The Supreme Court says that the Archiving Dispatch is based on the insufficiency of evidence and, therefore, it is not a declaration of innocence and then decides in accordance with this understanding.

What the McCanns do is to read the judgement up to that fact given as proven and then read the decision, ignoring all of the Supreme Court's arguments that will justify why the court understands that there is no declaration of innocence. They may ignore it, but it is there written, so, without the slightest doubt they will see the request for annulment dismissed as manifestly inadmissible.

It will not be accepted because the Supreme Court has already explained in the judgement why it reaches to the conclusions established in the ruling and, as explained, there is no contradiction between the Supreme Court's reasoning and the decision, which is why the request of the McCann will be dismissed.

As to the hypothesis that more than a dilatory strategy, what that they want is to somehow have an argument to proceed with a complaint to the ECtHR. One could argue that there are always these tactics when we are talking about the McCanns. They are free of going to the ECtHR, of course. But if they go there, it will fall flat on its face. And for the very reasons previously invoked.

There is a “frivolity” in the annulment request that is a bit pushing what is acceptable, but still, it can be allowed in the scope of the broader freedom of expression that lawyers have when they are defending their clients.

One hopes the Supreme Court judges would state on the annulment's decision something like: “the Appellants accuse this court of frivolously drawing conclusions, but those who frivolously ignore the reasoning of this court's ruling are the Appellants”.

It should be noted that a request for the annulment of a Supreme Court of Justice ruling is exceptional, rare. And that this request has a suspensory effect. Being suspensive, means that all the consequences of the Supreme Court's ruling are suspended, that is, there is no final and unappealable decision, and therefore, the decision is not definitive and can not be fulfilled, meaning, yes, that Gonçalo Amaral will have to wait for the decision of the Supreme Court on the request for annulment.

Gonçalo Amaral was notified of the request for the annulment of the Supreme Court´s ruling. As there is always the right to adversarial proceedings, Gonçalo Amaral can respond, saying that the ruling of the Supreme Court of Justice does not warrant any rectification or criticism. Then all parties have to await for the ruling of the Supreme Court's conference.

The totality of the judges of the civil section is the conference, the request will be assessed by all judges of the civil section of the Supreme Court of Justice, including those who have deliberated on the judgement called into question. The mechanism should be similar to the distribution of the appeals to the Supreme Court of Justice.

As for the forecast date of the decision, in the Supreme Court of Justice the deadlines are extended. The judges will first submit the draft judgement, then the conference of judges will gather in order to assess the draft, then they will see if there are more votes in favour of or against, then it will be decided what the ruling is, after the judge rapporteur will write the final wording of the judgement according to what was decided by the conference, then the conference will reconvene for the final vote of the decision and for the presentation of the defeated votes, if there are any.
-----------------------------------

My only 'query' would be: Did they 'file' their 9 page 'complaint/appeal' in 'time'?

It is 'dated' 16th Feb 2017 which was 16 days AFTER the PSC 'judgement'.

I 'read' that they ONLY had 10 days, from the 'judgement', in which to 'submit' any 'appeal'

Is their 'appeal/complaint' even 'valid'? (in 'law')

If 'filed' outside the statutory 'time limit' (10 days?) will it even 'be heard'?

Or, is this 'latest' erm 'diversion' all only 'for the show'?

SuspiciousMinds wrote:

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

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

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

Titter ye not!

Michael Wright's testimony under oath before a Lisbon Court..

ID [Isabel Duarte - McCanns lawyer] - In which circumstances did the McCanns learn about the book and the documentary?


MW  [Michael Wright  - Kate McCann's cousin's husband] - says they knew before the shelving of the case, that a book would be published. About the documentary, they were told it had been broadcast on TV in April 2009.


ID - When did they read the book and watch the documentary?


MW – They read the book when I sent them the translation that was on the internet in August 2008. They heard about the documentary in March/April 2009. There was a big campaign in Praia da Luz, they needed people to support them and the documentary had a negative effect on that.





ETA:  AnnaEsse who translated the book into English should sue them for a £100,000 translation fee.

plebgate wrote:

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

Snipped from GetemGoncalo's original post..

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.