Re: Sunday Express tomorrow BRING THEM ALL BACK TO PORTUGAL

by rainbow-fairy 10.05.13 15:25

Portia wrote:Lest we forget: they do not have to prove anything.

It is the Judiciary that had to charge them.

Untill proven otherwise in a Court of Law, they are innoncent.

That's how the system works; the democratic system.

Infeef that. May be true Portia; but you would think that 'innocent' parents who unwittingly come under suspicion would want to prove their innocence if at all possible.

But back to the main article - it keeps saying Murat and McCanns 'cleared' - how?
Their arguido status was lifted is all surely, plus they never appeared before a jury to BE 'cleared'?
Confused! dontgetit

by russiandoll 10.05.13 15:40

They were not charged with any crime due to there being no evidence that they had committed any. I think it is the case that the couple are, in the eyes of the law, as innocent as you and me. Their status is just as it would have been had they never come under suspicion/scrutiny.

by Newintown 10.05.13 15:45

rainbow-fairy wrote:
Portia wrote:Lest we forget: they do not have to prove anything.

It is the Judiciary that had to charge them.

Untill proven otherwise in a Court of Law, they are innoncent.

That's how the system works; the democratic system.
Infeef that. May be true Portia; but you would think that 'innocent' parents who unwittingly come under suspicion would want to prove their innocence if at all possible.

But back to the main article - it keeps saying Murat and McCanns 'cleared' - how?
Their arguido status was lifted is all surely, plus they never appeared before a jury to BE 'cleared'?
Confused!

I thought it was said sometime ago, can't remember by who (whom?), that if the PJ reopen the case they could be made arguidos again, or have I got that wrong.

by Ayniia 10.05.13 16:15

russiandoll wrote:They were not charged with any crime due to there being no evidence that they had committed any. I think it is the case that the couple are, in the eyes of the law, as innocent as you and me. Their status is just as it would have been had they never come under suspicion/scrutiny.

But there's no proof because as we all know the PJ wasn't allowed to gather evidence because of all the pressure, sadly

by Guest 10.05.13 17:13

Newintown wrote:
rainbow-fairy wrote:
Portia wrote:Lest we forget: they do not have to prove anything.

It is the Judiciary that had to charge them.

Untill proven otherwise in a Court of Law, they are innoncent.

That's how the system works; the democratic system.
Infeef that. May be true Portia; but you would think that 'innocent' parents who unwittingly come under suspicion would want to prove their innocence if at all possible.

But back to the main article - it keeps saying Murat and McCanns 'cleared' - how?
Their arguido status was lifted is all surely, plus they never appeared before a jury to BE 'cleared'?
Confused!

I thought it was said sometime ago, can't remember by who (whom?), that if the PJ reopen the case they could be made arguidos again, or have I got that wrong.

Absolutely. But I do not think the PJ will do that, unless payrolled by SY.

by aiyoyo 10.05.13 18:24

Portia wrote:
Newintown wrote:
rainbow-fairy wrote:
Portia wrote:Lest we forget: they do not have to prove anything.

It is the Judiciary that had to charge them.

Untill proven otherwise in a Court of Law, they are innoncent.

That's how the system works; the democratic system.
Infeef that. May be true Portia; but you would think that 'innocent' parents who unwittingly come under suspicion would want to prove their innocence if at all possible.

But back to the main article - it keeps saying Murat and McCanns 'cleared' - how?
Their arguido status was lifted is all surely, plus they never appeared before a jury to BE 'cleared'?
Confused!

I thought it was said sometime ago, can't remember by who (whom?), that if the PJ reopen the case they could be made arguidos again, or have I got that wrong.

Absolutely. But I do not think the PJ will do that, unless payrolled by SY.

Because of the more complex judiciary systems in Portugal, it might be better if the two countries Police Forces can come to an agreement to have the case transferred to UK for trial since the crime of Fraudulent Fund inevitably has to be tried in UK.

It will make economical sense to have the prosecution done in UK as their incarceration will undoubtedly be in UK.

by plebgate 11.05.13 7:32

Not long now to wait to see if libel case goes ahead in Portugal.

I think that they will settle on Mr. A's terms as I believe they do not want to have a court case and questions asked about the night Maddie disappeared. Lying under oath would open them up to a custodial sentence possibly.

If they do settle then it will look very bad for them imo as I cannot see the some papers not following and printing any court case in Portugal

If they settle in Portugal I think the newspapers will not be afraid to print as I think it will indicate a reluctance to see the inside of a court room. Threaten to sue then settle, maybe one of the newspapers will go the whole hog and have a showdown in a court room in UK?

by **PeterMac** 11.05.13 8:02

russiandoll wrote:They were not charged with any crime due to there being no evidence that they had committed any. I think it is the case that the couple are, in the eyes of the law, as innocent as you and me. Their status is just as it would have been had they never come under suspicion/scrutiny.

Or alternatively "insufficient evidence to have a reasonable prospect of conviction. . . " which isn't quite the same thing.

by russiandoll 11.05.13 8:42

PeterMac wrote:
russiandoll wrote:They were not charged with any crime due to there being no evidence that they had committed any. I think it is the case that the couple are, in the eyes of the law, as innocent as you and me. Their status is just as it would have been had they never come under suspicion/scrutiny.
Or alternatively "insufficient evidence to have a reasonable prospect of conviction. . . " which isn't quite the same thing.

I know, I know...but the wording in the archiving report was not as above, was it? It was this :

there are no indications of the practise of any crime under the dispositions of article 277 number 1 of the Penal Process Code.
There had been and continues to be a very clever cover-up. It has been successful for 6 years, but I believe that we are witnessing the beginning of the end. Gerry McCann is not as clever as he thinks he is. The truth will come out eventually, of that I am confident.

by ShuBob 11.05.13 13:58

russiandoll wrote:
PeterMac wrote:
russiandoll wrote:They were not charged with any crime due to there being no evidence that they had committed any. I think it is the case that the couple are, in the eyes of the law, as innocent as you and me. Their status is just as it would have been had they never come under suspicion/scrutiny.
Or alternatively "insufficient evidence to have a reasonable prospect of conviction. . . " which isn't quite the same thing.

I know, I know...but the wording in the archiving report was not as above, was it? It was this :

there are no indications of the practise of any crime under the dispositions of article 277 number 1 of the Penal Process Code.
There had been and continues to be a very clever cover-up. It has been successful for 6 years, but I believe that we are witnessing the beginning of the end. Gerry McCann is not as clever as he thinks he is. The truth will come out eventually, of that I am confident.

Not quite but when you put the words you've quoted in context i.e. with the bit about them missing the chance to clear their name, then it's not far off from PM's comment.

by Me 13.05.13 12:19

russiandoll wrote:
PeterMac wrote:
russiandoll wrote:They were not charged with any crime due to there being no evidence that they had committed any. I think it is the case that the couple are, in the eyes of the law, as innocent as you and me. Their status is just as it would have been had they never come under suspicion/scrutiny.
Or alternatively "insufficient evidence to have a reasonable prospect of conviction. . . " which isn't quite the same thing.

I know, I know...but the wording in the archiving report was not as above, was it? It was this :

there are no indications of the practise of any crime under the dispositions of article 277 number 1 of the Penal Process Code.
There had been and continues to be a very clever cover-up. It has been successful for 6 years, but I believe that we are witnessing the beginning of the end. Gerry McCann is not as clever as he thinks he is. The truth will come out eventually, of that I am confident.

But that is a public prosecutor's (i.e bureaucrat's) interpretation of the evidence and not a firm court judgement. Also remember this Government lawyer also said they had failed to prove their innocence.

How cam they be in the clear when this same report states they have not proven their innoncence in the case?

Let's not also forget that when (indeed the only time so far) the evidence came to a court (in the book case) then the Judge's in the case validated Amaral's thesis of a crime being commited as a valid interepretation of the evidence gather equal to the assumptions of the archving report.

Latest topics