Supreme Court ruling opens new can of worms for McCanns

Posted by PORTUGALPRESS on February 07, 2017

With journalists here and in UK busily studying the 76-page text released yesterday by the Supreme Court - explaining why it dismissed the appeal for damages lodged by the parents of Madeleine McCann - blog writers are already ahead of them, uncovering salient points that blow even further ill wind into this almost decade long mystery.

It should be explained that the Textusa blog is one that subscribes to the theory expounded in Gonçalo Amaral’s controversial book “Madeleine: The Truth of the Lie”: the theory that three-year-old Madeleine died by accident in apartment 5a of Luz Ocean Club, in May of 2007 and that everything that has happened since has been part of a cover-up of “unseen proportions”

But Textusa’s convictions aside, what the blog has uncovered from page 68 of the Supreme Court ruling is potential dynamite.

In simple terms, it blows a hole in the McCanns’ legal argument that they have been absolved of any blame (or are, as the text suggests ‘inocentados’) in their daughter’s disappearance.

According to the couple’s appeal against Amaral’s victory last year (click here) not only are they completely innocent and have been absolved of any blame - due to the initial archiving of the case by the Portuguese authorities - they should have the right to benefit from the presumption of innocence.

However, the Supreme Court judges have said that archiving per se should not be confused with being considered innocent.

In fact, archiving can always be undone, the judges explain, in the event that “new elements of proof” come to light.

Says Textusa: “Very clearly and very explicitly the court is saying that the McCanns have NOT been cleared.

“Note, it has not said the McCanns were guilty. It is just saying that they have not been considered by the Portuguese Justice System as innocent.

“We do believe that this is historic and rebates definitely all those saying that the couple was cleared by the Portuguese justice”, adds the blog.

As the 10th anniversary of Madeleine McCann’s disappearance approaches, and media outlets are described as bidding hundreds of thousands to get an interview with the missing girl’s parents, this tortuously-worded judgement coming from Portugal’s highest court is certain to set tongues wagging for weeks to come.

For now, it is only in Portuguese - but campaigning blogsite Projecto Justiça Gonçalo Amaral (click here - which has been supporting former PJ coordinator Amaral throughout this eight-year legal battle - is due to release a translation in English within the next few days.

Link to Supreme Court ruling

natasha.donn@algarveresident.com


PORTUGALPRESS

Join us on Facebook

        

Courtesy of Textusa Blog

McCanns NOT cleared


Tuesday, 7 February 2017

The sentence of the Supreme Justice Court of the McCann v Amaral Lisbon Trial has today been published on Projecto Justiça Gonçalo Amaral (PGJA) here.

We are waiting for the translation of the document that is being done there, which we here would like to immediately show our gratitude for.

However, we would like to share with our readers something in the sentence that was invoked by the plaintiffs:

“And this because, as the appellants say in the conclusions of the allegations of the appeal, besides being absolutely innocent and cleared, by the archival dispatch of the crime-process, also have the right to benefit the principle of innocence?” (page 68 of sentence)

The Supreme Justice Court had this to say about that:

“It should be added that we are before an archival decision by the Public Ministry, which is liable of change by many ways.

As such, besides appealing via jurisdiction, through the opening of an instruction (CPP art.287º), and to making a claim to the higher hierarchy (CPP art. 378º), the inquiry can be reponed if new elements of proof appear that invalidate the grounds invoked by the Public Ministry in the archival dispatch (CPP art. 279º)-

Besides, that is said in the “Note to the Media” disclosed by the PGR on 21/7/08 in which was announced that it had been determined the archival of the inquiry and informed that the “same could be reopened, by initiative of the Public Ministry ou by request of an interested party, if new elements of proof would appear that originated serious, pertinent and consequent diligences” (#14 of proven facts).

In this way, not being the alluded archival dispatch a written decision on a strict sense, nor assuming definitive aspect, much less would be justified the invoking of the principle of presumption of innocence to restrict freedom of expression.” (page 69 of sentence, 1st picture of post)

And:

“And let it not be said, also, that the appellants were cleared by the archival dispatch of the crime-process.

In truth, the alluded dispatch wasn’t pronounced because the Public Ministry gained the conviction that the appellants did not commit any crime (as by nº1 of the art. 277º of the CPP)

Such archival, in the case, was determined because it wasn’t possible for the Public Ministry to obtain enough legally admissible indicia of the practice of a crime by the appellants (as by nº2, art. 277º of CPP)

There is, then, a significant difference, and not merely of semantics, between the grounds legally admissible of the archival dispatch.

It doesn’t seem, then, acceptable that it should be considered that the referred dispatch, grounded on insufficiency of indicia, should be equivalent to the proof of innocence.

We consider, therefore, that the invoking of the breaking of the principle of presumption of innocence, should not be received, not weighing such principle in the decision that has to be taken.” (page 70 of sentence)

Very clearly and very explicitly the Supreme Justice Court is saying that the McCanns have NOT been cleared.

Note, it has not said the McCanns were guilty. It is just saying that they have not been considered by the Portuguese Justice System as innocent.

We do believe that this is historic and rebates definitely all those saying that the couple was cleared by the Portuguese justice.

On January 31 2017 this was set straight.

Textusa         

Link to Supreme Court ruling

Join us on Facebook