Madeleine McCann: German Prisoner Identified as Suspect #31

[mrjitty]

This is all made clear in the case - it is one of the reasons the plaintiffs failed in the Supreme Court

Quotes from the ECHR decision up thread

Consequently, given that the decision to close the investigation without further action is not a judicial decision in the strict sense and that it is not final, it would be even less justified to invoke the principle of the presumption of innocence to restrict freedom of expression.

(...)

And let it not be said that the appellants were exonerated ( inocentados ) by the decision to close the criminal investigation without further action.

In this case, it is not because the public prosecutor's office was convinced that the appellants had not committed a criminal offense that this decision was rendered (see article 277 § 1 of the CCP).

This dismissal, in this case, was decided because the prosecution had not obtained sufficient evidence to show that the appellants had committed a criminal offense (see Article 277 § 2 of the CCP).

There is therefore a significant difference, and not simply a semantic one, between the legally admissible grounds for a decision to classify without follow-up.

 

[mrjitty]

Perhapd they would have been better advised to accept the SC judgement and not to go the the ECHR

In terms of legal strategy, they got hit with a big costs award following the SC decision, so I presume they wanted to achieve compensation somewhere to make up their losses.

 

[enquirer6]

The "right" to spout lies and falsehoods that lower reputation and profit from them as been upheld by the European Court and the Portuguese Supreme Court.

 

[Davieson]

In terms of legal strategy, they got hit with a big costs award following the SC decision, so I presume they wanted to achieve compensation somewhere to make up their losses.

Will the costs not now be even greater ?

 

[RichardKimble]

Will the costs not now be even greater ?

The actual cost's of going to the ECHR are free, it'll be the lawyers who will want the filthy lucre.

Application - Cost - ECHRCaseLaw

www.echrcaselaw.com

The proceedings before the ECtHR are FREE. That is to say, in order to lodge an appeal before the Court, the applicant is not subject to legal costs, fees, court registration and fees. If his application is dismissed either as inadmissible or as unfounded, the applicant is not ordered to pay the costs. The only costs are those of the correspondence with the Court (registered letters or courier) and, of course, the remuneration of one’s lawyer.

 

[Davieson]

The "right" to spout lies and falsehoods that lower reputation and profit from them as been upheld by the European Court and the Portuguese Supreme Court.

Something you'll have to come to terms with as there's no court above the ECHR, so what they say goes.

 

[imstilla.grandma]

The police officer, Goncalo Amaral, who worked on the investigation into Madeleine's disappearance in 2007 on a family holiday in Portugal, suggested in a book he authored, "Truth of the Lie", that the youngster's parents had been involved.

The ECHR ruling said the Portuguese judiciary had not failed in its duty to protect the rights of the McCanns and that their arguments concerning presumption of innocence were ill-founded.

"Even assuming that the applicants' reputation had been damaged, this was not on account of the argument put forward by the book's author but rather as a result of the suspicions expressed against them," the ECHR ruled.

Amaral told Reuters the decision was "a victory for justice and the Portuguese justice system and for all those who fight for freedom of expression and opinion."

Kate and Gerry McCann said they were "disappointed" with the decision in a statement via lawyer, Ricardo Correia Afonso, but added that "much has changed" since they started the proceedings. The lawyer said they would not appeal.

European court rules against parents of missing Madeleine McCann

The European Court of Human Rights ruled on Tuesday against the parents of missing British toddler Madeleine McCann, saying that Portugal had given them a fair hearing in their libel battle against a former Portuguese policeman.

www.reuters.com

 

[enquirer6]

Something you'll have to come to terms with as there's no court above the ECHR, so what they say goes.

So you don't think anything should be done to spare people, in the future, from the possibility of the horrendous and iniquitous ordeal meted out to the McCanns?

 

[mrjitty]

Personally I think the plaintiff's lawyers botched the pleading.

They didn't produce evidence to show the allegations were untrue, or materially different to the public narrative. Rather they relied on being 'cleared' by the PJ archiving summary - however the Lisbon trial court and the appeal courts didn't accept that contention. So then through all the appeals they were stuck with the finding that the book was the same as the PJ files and the media narrative.

 

[enquirer6]

Personally I think the plaintiff's lawyers botched the pleading.

They didn't produce evidence to show the allegations were untrue, or materially different to the public narrative. Rather they relied on being 'cleared' by the PJ archiving summary - however the Lisbon trial court and the appeal courts didn't accept that contention. So then through all the appeals they were stuck with the finding that the book was the same as the PJ files and the media narrative.

The archiving summary could not have been more clear that Madeleine was abducted from her bed in a criminal act by a stranger.

They reached that conclusion despite (apparently) missing that the deployment of the English sniffer dogs was incompetent and corrupt; their handler, freelance.

 

[RichardKimble]

Back to the dogs and their handler again, did they write the book and or archiving summary.

 

[enquirer6]

Back to the dogs and their handler again, did they write the book and or archiving summary.

The beef is with the handler, not the dogs.

 

[Davieson]

So you don't think anything should be done to spare people, in the future, from the possibility of the horrendous and iniquitous ordeal meted out to the McCanns?

None of my concern.

 

[Anxala]

Thanks to @Tekno and @mrjitty for the links to/content/analysis of the ECHR judgement. Much appreciated.

 

[enquirer6]

I'm not, altogether, surprised by this ruling. Someone elsewhere found a case concerning a couple of English yachtsmen who sailed their yacht to Portugal, anchored off the coast and went ashore. While their boat was anchored there, Portuguese officials found a stash of illegal drugs on the seabed quite close to their yacht. That was all the 'evidence' the Portuguese authorities needed to convict the yachtsmen of illegal drug smuggling. They appealed through the Portuguese courts and lost; then to the European court, who threw out the case without hearing it on grounds that they are not a final court of appeal against judgements of national courts.

 

[Davieson]

Suddenly no one is surprised ar the verdict. A marked change from a short while ago

 

[enquirer6]

Suddenly no one is surprised ar the verdict. A marked change from a short while ago

The fundamental point that Amaral has been allowed to profit from a book of lies that lowers reputation remains.

 

[Davieson]

The fundamental point that Amaral has been allowed to profit from a book of lies that lowers reputation remains.

It was nothing to do with him but I know you'll never accept that.
However its over . McCanns lost.

 

[Chiatos]

So - no "official formal charges" yet for CB?? No court date?

TIA!

Patience, Niner. We must wait for a couple of weeks.

 

[Davieson]

Patience, Niner. We must wait for a couple of weeks.

Or should that be a couple of months or even a couple of years ?