18 Mar 2017

Arguição de Nulidade do Acórdão

Below is a copy of the McCann's request for annulment of the Supreme Court´s decision, filed by the couple´s lawyer on the 16th of February, 2017. We understand that the filing of this appeal has a suspensive effect on the Supreme Court´s ruling.

The request alleges that the Supreme Court´s decision "lacks a foundation (...) in stating that one cannot invoke the principle of presumption of innocence in order to restrict the right to freedom of expression, because it is based on the erroneous presumption that the archiving of the criminal investigation 'was determined because it was not possible for the Public Ministry to obtain enough indications of the practice of crimes by the appellants'".

In case you are struggling with the legalese (we do), here is what we understand to be the reasoning behind the request:

1. The McCanns have invoked the principle of presumption of innocence to justify the restrictions they want imposed on dr. Amaral's freedom of expression;

2. The Supreme Court stated, in its ruling, that the above is no argument because the McCanns were not considered innocent by the investigation and the case was archived because not enough evidence was found to charge them.

3. The McCanns, because they believe the above argument is false, request for the Supreme Court's decision to be nullified.

14 comments:

  1. Anonymous1:22 am

    May I ask ...

    Is alumnus Ricardo prepared to pay - sorry! I meant "to pray" - for a more favourable outcome, or is it just a request for a free masterclass in Law from his country's Supreme Court?

    Probably it is all an expensive exercise in judicial rhetoric - one the McCanns' can perfectly afford - in the eventuality of the case being brought all the way to the European Court of Human Rights at Strasbourg.

    Perhaps they are hoping the senior judges will say "something stupid, like I love you!" or perhaps worst, such a stamp reading: "Fax the McCanns'" - which could then be used as ammunition in Strasbourg.

    Perhaps it is my glasses, but I can't quite see that happening after Britain has decided to leave the EU and ditch the EU Human Rights Charter as nonsense.

    That said - bearing in mind money is not a problem for the careless but vindictive couple - stubbornness counts in terms of reputation management and public opinion! Particularly given the contrast between Portuguese and British ideology status in world affairs.

    In terms of Symbolic Logic, what they are trying to say is that Portuguese justice is utterly incompetent - even at the Supreme Court level!

    Very much like Scotland Yard's "blockbuster productions" in Praia da Luz were PR manoeuvres designed to suggest the Portuguese Police were a bunch of dishevelled "sardine munchers" incapable of catching a hamster - let alone a child who went down the rabbit hole. Seemingly.

    The novella will go on ...

    If they do break the protocols (or pay for them) and go all the way to Strasbourg - and loose yet again - then they will be "perfectly justified" in saying that European Courts are **** (censored), and that they are glad they have left the Union, ditch their Human Rights Charter and adopt a more "flexible" (and more profitable) approach to sentences - such as we saw not long ago applied to solicitor Tony Bennett, who had no money to defend himself against Carter-Ruck - lawyers to the very rich and powerful. Think Isabel Duarte and Associates with an English accent and tight upper lips ...

    I will be extremely disappointed if the post-Brexit Portuguese justice system, were to show any subservience to foreigner parents (no matter how rich and well-connected) who - night after night, carelessly abandoned their children to their fate!

    There are Portuguese couples in England who, for lesser peccadilloes, have had their children taken from them On Her Majesty's court orders ...

    Samuel


    References:

    https://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/jt201617/jtselect/jtrights/695/69504.htm

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chipping_Norton_set

    https://www.theguardian.com/uk/2011/may/13/madeleine-mccann-case-pm-police

    ReplyDelete
  2. When two peers warned that the independence of the Met was under threat after the prime minister brought in Scotland Yard to review the disappearance of MMC, they were just reasonable. But had they be aware that the review would be running after an abductor whose existence was supported by no evidence whatsoever, what would the peers have said ?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Anonymous5:52 pm

      I know what you mean Anne ...

      Whatever they (peers) would have said, the elected commoners would not have listened - on the grounds that the peers were not elected and therefore had no saying in "adult matters" - and thus we arrived at this state- sponsored global soap opera. Et amen!

      IMHO this can be best understood in terms of the dynamics of British Ideology and Hegemony.

      I will explain ...

      Although the McCanns' do not have much cultural-social pedigree (their parents were just average working class folk) they both make it to medical school and Gerry has become quite successful as a consultant in Cardiology and is now a Professor. Well ... we have known for many years that he has a very resourceful intelligence, but I digress ...

      Furthermore, around the time of their daughter's demise (thanks to their carelessness?) Dr. Gerald McCann had been appointed as a member of a medical-scientific team (COMARE) advising the British Government on the health impact of natural and man-made radiation (...)

      This alone, automatically places him in the higher echelons of the British ideological state apparatuses (Louis Althusser) and may help to explain the extent of the British government involvement in the McCanns' reputation management - including the drafting of Scotland Yard, until recently regarded as one of the best investigative police forces in the world, now in danger of becoming a laughing stock.

      Where is Scotland Yard heading to? No idea! (smirk).

      It's all vaguely reminiscent of "Operation Grange"! Sorry! I meant "Operation Mincemeat" ...

      Best regards

      A.

      Reference: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Mincemeat

      Delete
    2. I see what you mean, A.
      Well, you may be right, especially on the Marxist reading (Louis Althusser). Personally and as far I limit it to the alleged mystery, I have a more simple explanation. Simple but as complex as the human kind can be.

      Delete
  3. According to the document a receipt of justice fees is appended but it has not been annexed to the document uploaded above. Was that receipt emailed also to Gonçalo Amaral ?

    ReplyDelete
  4. Anonymous2:29 pm

    How disgracefully offensive to the Portugese judicial systme these people are, they keep insisting on their rights but won't take any responsiblity for ensuring that they act in a reasonable law abiding and responsible way to be able to have the privilege of those rights.

    ReplyDelete
  5. May I insist on the receipt of justice fees supposed to be appended ? I'm like doubting Thomas, I need to see and feel the wounds to believe. And this alleged nullifying order that I consider surrealistic (weighing my words) is about as extraordinary as the story of the man who emerged from the dead.

    ReplyDelete
  6. Anonymous2:18 pm

    My question has been already been raised elsewhere:

    Is there a time limit after which a complaint will not heard by PSC?

    If so was the complaint delivered in time ?

    ReplyDelete
  7. Anonymous12:15 am

    "The McCanns have invoked the principle of presumption of innocence to justify the restrictions they want imposed on Dr. Amaral's freedom of expression".

    Oh really?

    I have read and re-read "The Truth of the Lie" - the book that so offended the formidable legal and PR apparatus of the infamous couple - and nowhere do I read Dr. Amaral peremptorily stating that the couple "did it". Did I miss something?

    In my opinion Dr. Amaral is merely giving his opinion as a criminologist of what "might have happened" – or if you prefer, what in his opinion “did happen”- particularly since there is no proof whatsoever that "it did not happen" - is there?

    Expert investigators and criminologists from dogs (e.g. “Eddie” and “Keela”) to top criminologists (e.g. Pat Brown) – are of the same opinion, namely that “it might have happened, or probably did happen”!

    Even the Portuguese PJ at the time - before they were gagged and told to run errands for Scotland Yard – shared the same opinion!

    The average Joe Bloggs needs only to read the official files which were released before the publication of the book, to be left with the same opinion. Where is the BIG deal?

    Guilt or innocence aside, any judge worth its salt - or any person with a modicum of common sense - can see the scale of Justice pending towards "freedom of expression". Furthermore in the case of Dr. Amaral his constitutional rights were also used to protect his good name!

    I use the expression "worth its salt" advisedly, bearing in mind there were other less experienced judges (both in Portugal and elsewhere – money talks?) who gave the impression of being at a loss to understand what was really at stake here ...

    References:

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3EHJjpXii9o
    http://patbrownprofiling.blogspot.co.uk/2016/05/why-parents-who-kill-their-children-may.html

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. The book was published before the PJFiles were. Of course both were in Portuguese.
      I agree that GA doesn't state that the MCs did this or that. He's much more delicate referring to them than he is when referring to abject gossips concerning Mr Murat. I always wondered how he dared.
      But one has to admit that GA was (made to ?) behaving quite differently in the interviews after his book was published.

      Delete
  8. Anonymous3:39 pm

    "Não se verificou a ratificação laboratorial dos vestígios assinalados pelos cães" (RCA)

    Bem isso poderá depender de quem as ratificou! Neste caso o defunto FSS - um laboratório do governo Inglês em Birmingham!

    Depois de tudo a que assistimos, duvido que os FSS tivessem chegado a outra conclusão que não fosse a ilibação dos pais! Podem-me chamar de cínico ...

    Refiro-me acima às "cunhas" e ao "apadrinhamento politico" dos McCanns' por parte do governo Inglês - e não só... de milionários e celebridades, para não falar dos "media" - alguns dos quais já "carter-rucked" pelo casal e a tentar recuperar das pesadas indemnizações que tiveram de pagar pela tal presunção de inocência que impera na lei Inglesa. "Maddie sells!"

    Dito tudo isto, é bom saber que:

    "Within civil proceedings, it is possible in Portuguese courts for a judge to issue a sentence based on free appraisal of the evidence and his or her persuasion." (in estudo da Universidade de Coimbra).

    Em Inglaterra os tribunais não funcionam bem assim. Funcionam da mesma forma que conduzem ou seja - ao contrario!

    Dai as dificuldades porque passou Deborah Lipstad quando o falso-historiador David Irving a acusou de o ter difamado, num livro que ela escrevera sobre o Holocausto. Ela acabou por ganhar, talvez por ser Norte-Americana e por ter um dos melhores advogados ingleses (Anthony Julius) que de resto sugerimos ao Dr. Goncalo Amaral - se decidir contra-processar os McCanns' em Inglaterra - isto se a post-Brexit justiça Inglesa autorizar tal! O que duvido. Nem mesmo a pré-Brexit! Penso! : )

    Referencia:
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=T3AmjQgS1KI

    ReplyDelete
  9. David Irving is a racist, anti-Semite, and Shoah denier. I don't think he was condemned thanks to a good lawyer. Reading what he wrote was enough.

    ReplyDelete
  10. Desculpa-me, Anonymous 3:39, agora só estou a perceber que respondi-lhe em Inglês... Penso que não é problema, mas deveria ter respondido na mesma língua.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Anonymous5:37 pm

      Boa tarde Anne!

      Eu compreendi o que quis dizer! Estou certo de que se apercebeu que foi o pseudo-historiador David Irving (o culpado) que acusou a historiadora (de facto) Deborah Lipstadt de o ter difamado - dai o paralelo que estabeleci entre o Dr. Gonçalo Amaral (um verdadeiro criminologista) e os McCanns (maniqueístas) sem qualquer respeito pela liberdade de expressão dos outros; mesmo daqueles que, por compaixão, os deixaram sair de Portugal "Scot-free" ...

      Procurava também chamar a atenção para o facto de a Justiça Inglesa colocar "o ônus da prova" na defesa, o que neste caso significava que era a responsabilidade de Lipstadt (e da sua editora) provarem que a representação deliberadamente falsa da evidência apresentada por Irving no seu livro - por forma a conformar a mesma(s) com seus pontos de vista racistas e anti-semitas - eram substancialmente verdadeiras.

      Como por certo deve de saber, Anthony Julius é considerado um dos melhores advogados Ingleses - e que eu saiba, não esta associado com a Carter-Ruck.

      De acordo com os entendidos Lipstadt escolheu bem. O Dr. Gonçalo Amaral não escolheria mal, isto se a justiça Inglesa autorizasse quem quer que seja levar os McCanns' a tribunal - muito menos um "alien! : )

      Mas divago ... os McCanns' não tiveram de passar por isto (e.g. "reconstrução do crime") caso em que, como se diz, "estariam fritos" - não necessariamente "assados" mas teriam, sem duvida, levado um "escaldão".

      Foram arrogantes, vindicativos e mal-agradecidos - direi ate preconceituosos!

      Esperemos porem, que com a saída de Inglaterra do Mercado Comum, a PJ possa proceder com as suas investigações, sem pressões politicas e que, eventualmente, possam chamar os McCanns "à pedra" - nem que seja metaforicamente. A Inglaterra nunca os extraditaria ...

      Afinal temos casais Portugueses em Inglaterra cujos filhos foram "sequestrados" pelos serviços sociais Ingleses por muito menos - ou quase a mesma coisa ...

      Delete