Textusa: The 3rd Big Surprise

1. Introduction

The other side was again stunned.

2017 is certainly NOT their year. We’re still in the 3rd month and they already have their third extremely unpleasant surprise.

The first surprise was the content of the acórdão of the Portuguese Supreme Justice Court.

The decision in January of not giving reason to the McCanns was not a surprise to the other side but having the reality that the McCanns were never cleared stated in black and white in an official judicial document certainly was.

The second surprise was the government saying they had a key-witness who justified the government further funding Operation Grange with £85,000.

It was not a surprise for the other side this further funding of Grange as it was their desire but having the vagueness of the European human trafficking gang discarded completely from one minute to the next certainly was.

And now they got their third 2017 extremely unpleasant surprise.


2. Not a surprise

The decision of the Supreme Justice Court rejecting the complaint was certainly no surprise to the other side or to anyone.

It was a shameful [You must be registered and logged in to see this link.].

In terms of form, it had with an extra-large font, not to say arrogantly childish, and with exaggerated spaces between lines and paragraphs:

A museum wall would be the right place to put such a work of art, if one considers art as something that perpetuates itself by the shock it causes, and these 9 pages fulfil that criteria.

Another reason for it to be framed is its content. Having it up on wall all could see and learn what not to do when arguing legal matters.

If a student, wanting to pass a test s/he had failed in a big way, desperately needing to pass, would submit in writing something like “I don’t care what if I ignored all you taught in class nor if I disregarded completely what the text book says, because I say I want to pass, I shall pass, so you immediately go back and change my grade and pass me, you incompetent idiot!”, would it cross anyone’s mind that it would convince the teacher to alter anything?

That's what this complaint basically is: a student, the McCanns, rudely telling off the teacher, the Supreme Justice Court, saying it doesn’t know left from right about what it is supposed to be the highest authority on, and so should humiliate itself and change a sentence just because it’s convenient for the complainants.

It even ties itself up in a knot. It says “... the invalidation of grounds invoked by the Public Ministry in the archival dispatch, pronounced under the provisions of the nº1 of the artº 277º of the CPP, can only be grounded in new facts or means of proof unknown [ignorado] by the Public Ministry at the time of the inquiry and, because of that, could not be, then, presented and produced, so as to be appreciated and valued in the decision”

So, according to the complainants “new facts and means of proof” can arise that when “appreciated and valued” can give grounds to invalidate the archiving dispatch. Please note the bold and underlining are not ours but just transcribed from the original document (pg 7).

Which means the complainants clearly recognise that the archiving dispatch can change and unless they wished to do jurisprudence by inventing a new legal term of “innocent-for-now” they emptied out their own argument with the argument.

Lastly, a paper all-round so weak that she who gave her face to the McCann legal team, Isabel Duarte chose not to put her name to it as it was her associate Ricardo Afonso, the lawyer who filled in for her in the Lisbon trial on the day she was unable to attend, who signs the document:

[You must be registered and logged in to see this link.], has done a really good job in debunking this complaint in her blog.

So it was as near to impossible as anything can be that this document would receive anything but rejection from the Portuguese Supreme Justice Court.

We said so right from the minute we heard the news of it, as our post “[You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]” shows.

 So, rejection came as absolutely no surprise for the other side.

3. The surprise

To understand the surprise, one has to read the following from [You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]:

“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.”

By reading the above, another objective for the complaint becomes clear: not only did it want to prolong things beyond the decision to further funding of Grange but it was also the intention to prolong it further than April.

When we said the following in our post “[You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]”, it was just a hunch:

“Only problem for the other side, is that this is just a complaint, not an appeal.

It does not require any contradictory from the opposing side’s legal team as the opposing side is the Supreme Justice Court, the decider.

It does not involve a collective of judges to decide, it’s up to the Court President.

The complaint entered the court, has been given to its President for decision which, once made, will be communicated to the complainer.

The only thing we are see delaying this decision in any way is the time the court will take to come up with the appropriate wording – which we hope will be followed by action – to dissuade other lawyers in other cases to not follow this example so highly denigrating and insulting to the court.

Not being an appeal, there is much less to be decided, involving less people, so naturally will take significantly less that if it were one.

We think that a few months is an exaggerated hope on the other side’s part.”

[You must be registered and logged in to see this link.] proved us wrong and the [You must be registered and logged in to see this link.] from which we got to know the decision, shows that there was indeed a conference of judges (Judges Roque Nogueira, Alexandre Reis and Pedro Lima Gonçalves) to decide on the complaint.

So Tracey Kandhola had some reason to say “a family friend added: “It’s been dragging on for nearly nine years and they’re not giving up for the sake of a few more months.”” in the Mirror article published Feb 19 2017 21:25 and updated that day at 22:18: ““[You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]”.

They really were betting on it taking months.

If one takes into account that the appeal from Mr Amaral’s legal team entered the court in June last year and was only decided at the end of this January, it would seem reasonable, knowing what procedures it would entail, to expect the decision in October/November, which would mean forcing the government into another further funding of Grange, this time for the second semester of the 2017/2018 fiscal year.

So the very unpleasant surprise for the other side was not the decision but how quickly it was made.

Joana Morais, quoted by Natasha Donn in the article published March 21, “[You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]” explains why this happened:

“As blogwriter Joana Morais has commented, Roque Nogueira’s decision came “sooner than we expected” and was “no doubt due to the weaknesses of the reasoning presented in the request for annulment of the Supreme Court’s ruling”.”

Second big mistake made by the McCann legal team. The first was forcing – it was their initiative – the Supreme Justice Court to put in black and white the fact the McCanns were never cleared, and now submitting a document so weak that it took, in terms of Portuguese legal times, a record time for the court to decide to reject it.

And unless the McCanns find a legal loophole that allows them to complain to the manager of the court’s cafeteria, it’s the end of the line for the McCanns.

It came sooner than expected.

This implies the obvious and that is there are no more excuses for the government not to act.


4. The British Press and the complaint

One must of course, remind readers how the British press reported the news that the McCanns had filed the complaint:

[You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]. The Daily Mail: “[You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]“ by Gerard Couzens, published Feb 18 2017 09:40nd updated that day at 10:34.

[You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]. The Mirror: “[You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]”, by Gerard Couzens and Anthony Bond, published Feb 18 14:19 and updated that day at 14:23.

[You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]. The Mirror: “[You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]”, by Alan Selby, published Feb 18 2017 updated on Feb 19 2017 00:32.

[You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]. The Metro: “[You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]”, by Charles White Sunday, published Feb 19 2017 12:22.

[You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]. The Liverpool Echo: “[You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]” by Lorna Hughes, published Feb 19 2017 16:01.

[You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]. The Independent: “[You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]” by Lucy Pasha-Robinson, published Feb 19, estimated around 18:40.

[You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]. The Mirror: “[You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]” by Tracey Kandohla, published Feb 19 2017 21:25 and updated that day at 22:18.

[You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]. The Daily Mail: “[You must be registered and logged in to see this link.] by Gerard Couzens, published: Feb 21 2017 08:39 2017 and updated  that day at 08:51.

[You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]. The Telegraph: “[You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]” by Telegraph Reporters, published Feb 21 14:16.

This how same press has reported the McCann rejection by the Portuguese Supreme Justice Court:

[You must be registered and logged in to see this link.] - The Sun: “[You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]”, by Danny Collins, published March 22 2017 at 11:38, updated that day at 11:54.

[You must be registered and logged in to see this link.] - The Daily Mail: “[You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]”, by Gareth Davies, published Marc 22 12:58, and updated that day at 13:25.

[You must be registered and logged in to see this link.] - The Mirror: “[You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]” by Martin Fricker and Tracey Kandohla, published Mar 22 2017 17:14, updated that day at 22:52.

[You must be registered and logged in to see this link.] - The Express, “[You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]”, by unknown, published Mar 23 2017 00:01.

[You must be registered and logged in to see this link.] - The Daily Star: “[You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]”, by Jerry Lawton, published March 23 2017

Some significant difference in quantity, relevance and length of articles as the majority of the above 4 are very short and to the point.

An interesting contrast when compared with those articles announcing enthusiastically what was going to be a tough, long and expensive new legal battle.

The reporting of the rejection when compared with the one done when announcing it it’s as if the British press took this as an own defeat.

To note that the Sun article ends with a “More to follow” and nothing has followed since.

Gerard Couzens, Alan Selby, Charles White Sunday, Lorna Hughes, Lucy Pasha-Robinson and the Telegraph Reporters, where are you now?

You reported that it was going to be, repeating ourselves, a tough, long and expensive legal battle. Now that it has come abruptly to an end a month later, you keep silent.

At least Tracey Kandhola (in co-authorship, must be pointed out) has come back with an article that even though refers to Mr Amaral as a ‘cop’ 3 times, it must be noted that he’s also mentioned there another five times as “Goncalo Amaral” (twice), “Mr Amaral”, “Ex-police chief” and “former police chief”.

As a sidenote, it’s become quite irritating for these articles to be published with updates when we don’t even see the first version ever published. We were paying attention, and we missed the Mirror article both at 17:14 and 22:52 last Wednesday.


5. Options for the UK government

So now that the McCanns have reached the end of the line, one has to ask the UK government when and how it intends to act.

Is it this?



If this is the choice, then we would say that £12 million is quite a lot to pay for alleged ignorance and we think the vast majority would agree with us.

We would ask what happened to the “compelling evidence” reported Sep 18, 2016, by the Express in article by James Murray and Caroline Wheeler “[You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]”, in which is said that government had funded Operation Grange for the second semester of the fiscal year 2016/2017, with an extra £100,000 which would keep it going until April 2017?

“But a fresh request, believed to be for a sum of around £100,000, was submitted to the Home Office as the deadline approached and has now been signed off.

A Whitehall source had indicated funding would be approved if “compelling evidence that justifies the use of additional taxpayers’ money” was provided by the team.

A spokesman for the Home Office said on Friday: “We have provided the Metropolitan Police with the funding required for Operation Grange to continue until at least the end of this financial year.”

And we would also ask if the bombshell witness reported by the Sunday Express in the article by Caroline Wheeler, published Mar 12 2017 “[You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]”, didn’t say anything worthwhile investigating?

You know, the “solid live lead” who justified the government giving another £85,000 to Grange and which resulted in a debate on whether it was or wasn’t a waste of money.

As the saying goes, a laughing stock is not one who has cows with a good sense of humour.

Or is it this the choice?


If this is the choice, [You must be registered and logged in to see this link.] is not exactly helping...

Nor is the public opinion helping.

Just a reminder, if you disconnect with public then it must expect that same public to not connect with you on other matters.

It would also disregard the fact that Mr Amaral’s book, so much publicised by the British media lately which will continue to be available for all to read, will confirm that it’s all just a tale if the choice is to tell one. Lest it having been forgotten, it does seem he’s coming out with a second book.

And of course, we will be here to pick on the details of the tale, keeping the Maddie case alive.

Also to be remembered is that no one can now say, legally or otherwise, that the McCanns were cleared by the Portuguese Justice System. They were NOT. The nation’s Supreme Justice Court has said that TWICE, and one of the times did it after being challenged about that exact subject by the McCanns. 

Or will this be the choice?



This one we highly recommend it.

Which of the 3 is a decision that rests solely on the shoulders of the UK government.


6. Conclusion

Things couldn’t be simpler now.

It’s up to the British government to decide on what it is to do. Evidently, one can expect a fierce fight on the part of the other side.

In January they gave us the media fighting over each other to pay the McCanns to interview them for the 10th anniversary and the tears the Missing People Choir supposedly caused on Britain’s Got Talent.

Now, the best thing they could come up with is with some British woman claiming her child was almost the next Maddie, pulling a very unconvincing sympathy card on behalf of the McCanns.

The problem with firing successive volleys of artillery fire, which we have watched in the past 2 months – Gerry the NHS saviour, Gerry the lifesaver, Kate the Marathon sponsor, Piers Morgan as… Piers Morgan and the League of Minor celebrities – is that there’s only so much ammunition until it runs out.

The Sun’s Cyprus episode was just a wet firecracker. Signs the arsenal has emptied out?

We have had quite an enjoyable 2 months of bird-watching. See no reason not to continue.

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