McCanns NOT cleared - Textusa

8 February 2017
Judges demolish McCanns' innocence
Court acquits Gonçalo Amaral and points out that the couple was constituted as arguidos (suspects) with a "well-founded suspicion" of having committed a crime.



Kate and Gerry McCann are demolished in the judgement of the Supreme Court in which the former coordinator of the PJ is acquitted of paying half a million euros to the parents of the girl who disappeared in May 2007 in the Algarve. At stake is the book 'Maddie: The Truth of the Lie', in which Amaral argues that the girl died in an accident and that the body was concealed by the parents, who simulated an abduction.

The McCanns felt aggrieved by the book and sued the author. The Judge-Counsellors replied: "The defendant [Gonçalo Amaral] expressed his opinion in the light of the evidence and indications gathered in the investigation opened in virtue of the disappearance of Madeleine McCann on May 3, 2007 (...) Incidentally, the claimants (appellants, applicants) were constituted as arguidos in a criminal investigation, which implies that there was a well-founded suspicion of having committed crimes or crimes."

Kate and Gerry understand that the book is an attack on their honour and that the content results from the breach of professional secrecy by Gonçalo Amaral.

The Judge-Counsellors continue: "It is true that the criminal investigation was eventually archived, in virtue of none of the evidence that led to the constitution of the claimants as arguidos was confirmed. Nonetheless, even in the archiving dispatch serious reservations are made about the verisimilitude (reality of) of the allegation that Madeleine had been abducted."

As to the presumption of innocence invoked by the parents, they (Judges) consider that one should not say "that the claimants were acquitted through the order of archiving the criminal proceedings (investigation). The archiving was determined because it was not possible to obtain sufficient evidence of the practice of crimes. It does not seem reasonable to consider that said archiving dispatch, based on insufficient evidence, should be equated as substantiation (proof) of exoneration".

in Correio da Manhã, February 8, 2017

Joana Morais at 07:38
Share

I have just read Katie Hopkins' article in the DM: "The McCanns hate Maddie being named in the same breadth as Shannon Matthews, but were the two little girls really so very different?"

It seems to me both are similar in that in each case we are looking at a hoax. Reading between the lines, I think the writer is limited by lawyers as to how far she can go. I think her description of Madeleine being 'abducted' has been watered down by lawyers.

Re-reading the judgement I wonder if the M's legal team shot themselves in the PR foot. They must have been aware that the shelving didn't "clear" their clients. It appears that they included in their submissions the statement that the appellants (the Ms) were cleared by the archiving process thus inviting  m'learned judges to pronounce on the true meaning of the archiving and thus the adverse headlines of the past few days. It doesn't appear to me that the claim particularly strengthens their argument that there was no evidence or insufficient evidence that they were guilty of a criminal act, due a presumption of innocence and thus "damaged" by contrary claims. It probably wouldn't have affected the appeal outcome but it might have avoided the press headlines by being more circumspect.

Alternatively were they hoping inclusion of the statement, had it not been highlighted as nonsense, could then be waved as accepted by the highest court?

It is also interesting to note that it appears that the appeal court accepted as proved fact that the dogs alerted to blood and cadaverine (page 19) and also again that the Supreme Court placed weight on the fact that the actions of the M's in courting publicity opened themselves up to scrutiny and comment (Page 63 et seq).