Madeleine McCann's parents 'plan to fight Portuguese court ruling that they haven't been cleared of involvement in their daughter's disappearance'

Rising hysteria following the crushing defeat suffered by the parents of Madeleine McCann in the Supreme Court last month has been ratcheted up this weekend with news that the couple are now on the attack.

According to a report in today’s Correio da Manhã, the couple consider the court has been “frivolous” in upholding last year’s decision, on appeal, to free former PJ coordinator Gonçalo Amaral from paying any damages for his thesis on their daughter’s disappearance: the best-selling book “Maddie: The Truth of the Lie”.

Do you deny every basic right the McCanns are entitled to if not by decency but by law?

It is their right to challenge an outrageous written judgement which of itself defamed them. It is a pity you cannot take a step back and look at the likely repercussions of what these individuals said in their ruling.

There is no need to 'interpret' their meaning because they have been unashamedly unambiguous in their choice of phrase. Which has been picked up and reported verbatim in MSM and met with paroxysms of ecstasy from one end of the 'sceptic' network to the other.

Judges just cannot behave in the way these three have without their actions being called into question.

They are not a law unto themselves ... although they seem to think they are.

It is the twenty first century and Portugal is a player on the world stage as a modern democracy. In that context the rest of the civilised world must be looking at this judgement in complete puzzlement.

I wonder if they have to put a complaint in and that be dealt with before they can go to the ECHR or ECJ?

In my opinion it would seem from the point of view of the RU and ECHR legislation that the judges sailed over the line by basically stating that amaral could accuse the mccanns of killing their child because they had not been proven innocent, and only not charged as there was no evidence against them.  Neglecting to mention that is the entire point of the law, you cannot charge anyone without any evidence. Its not a technicality its not just the law, it is basic common sense. If you arrest someone with no evidence, what reason do you have to believe they committed the crime? The look on their face? Their race? their s-e-x? their sexuality? Their nationality? The fact that you just knew it as soon as you heard?

The next point is that they treated the presumption of innocence a right guaranteed in most legal systems as a mere technicality that had no relevance. That is a leap of logic. The mccanns, and anyone else are innocent and have to be proven guilty by a court after police have found enough evidence to bring them to court. The attorney general is not in a position to declare anyone innocent since innocence is not his to bestow,he can only declare there is enough evidence a crime was committed that charges should be brought. The courts can take away innocence, but they cannot bestow it. Declaring someone innocent was not his right.

Thirdly the court forgot major points of the final report. First is the fact that it stated there was no evidence the mccanns committed any crime, not "not enough" evidence but NO evidence. The report painstakingly referred to the evidence the police used to make the mccanns aguido and stated that this did not turn out to be evidence against them. The report also states that it was not possible for the mccanns to have hidden Madeleine, and refers to an abduction.

So in short we have a couple who in Portugal are innocent and have a right to that presumption of innocence, who have had the portuguese attorney general state that there is NO evidence they committed any crime and that they could not have hidden Madeleine and refers to her as having been abducted. Yet the supreme court says tough, they have to unlike everyone else have their innocence proven and amaral can accuse them of what he likes despite the fact he has to lie and mislead about the facts. His take on the DNA for instance is not an opinion it is false. Donald Trump is more reliable.